Contact us Follow @BCInfoPrivacy LinkedIn RSS
Advanced Search

Orders

View Sectional Index

If the OIPC cannot settle a request for review or complaint by mediation, the issue can proceed to an inquiry. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Commissioner or delegate issues a legally binding Order that determines the outcome of the dispute. Orders are enforceable by a court of law, and are subject to judicial review by the BC Supreme Court.

Preparing to participate in a written inquiry with the OIPC? Check out our detailed Instructions for Written Inquiries guide.

How to use this table: Orders can be sorted by date, number and title -- click on the column heading to sort by that category. Use the drop-down menus to filter Orders by legislation type (FIPPA or PIPA) and year. Leading Cases contain extensive discussion of a specific section of the Act. 

Year
select
Legislation
select
Leading Case
Judicial Review
Order Date Title
Summary
F24-18 Mar 12, 2024 City of Vancouver An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information and Pro... more
An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the total amount of compensation paid to a former City employee during a specified date range. The City withheld the information on the basis that releasing it would reveal information that is protected by common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that settlement privilege applied to the information in dispute and that there was no overriding public interest that justified finding an exception to the privilege.
F24-17 Mar 12, 2024 Thompson Rivers University Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested Thomp... more
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested Thompson Rivers University (University) provide access to records related to allegations the applicant made against several University employees. The University provided the applicant with responsive records but withheld information or entire pages of records under one or more FIPPA exceptions to access. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the University’s decision. The OIPC adjudicator determined the University was required or authorized to withhold some of the information at issue under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. However, the adjudicator required the University to provide the applicant with access to information that the University had incorrectly withheld under ss. 14, 13(1), 22(1) or s. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences).
F24-16 Mar 8, 2024 Provincial Health Services Authority An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) for a copy of an emergency dispatch protocol. Priority Dispatch Corp., the third party which licences use of the protocol software to the PHSA, objected to the PHSA’s decision to disclose the records at issue, saying that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause it significant harm under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the PHSA to disclose the information in dispute to the applicant.
F24-15 Feb 29, 2024 District of Summerland The District of Summerland (District) requested authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Informat... more
The District of Summerland (District) requested authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to disregard ten outstanding requests from the respondent. The adjudicator found that the requests were both “systematic” and “excessively broad” and that responding to them would interfere unreasonably with the District’s operations. The adjudicator authorized the District to disregard the ten requests and, for three years, to respond to one request at a time from the respondent or his family.
P24-05 Feb 27, 2024 Text IQ Labs Canada Inc. An individual (applicant) requested their own personal information from a former employer (organizat... more
An individual (applicant) requested their own personal information from a former employer (organization). In response, the organization provided some information to the applicant but withheld other information under several exceptions to disclosure in the Personal Information Protection Act. The adjudicator determined that the organization was authorized to withhold all the information it refused to disclose under s. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege). It was also required to refuse to disclose some information under ss. 23(4)(c) and (d) because disclosure would reveal personal information about another individual or would reveal the identity of an individual who provided personal information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the organization to disclose the rest of the applicant’s personal information either because ss. 23(4)(c) and (d) did not apply or because they did apply but the documents could be further severed and the applicant’s personal information disclosed under s. 23(5).
F24-14 Feb 27, 2024 British Columbia Utilities Commission The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, unde... more
The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the appointment of panel members for an inquiry. BCUC refused to disclose the records on the basis that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA) applies and says that FIPPA does not apply. The adjudicator finds that FIPPA does not apply because s. 61(2)(a) of the ATA applies.
P24-04 Feb 22, 2024 Finestra Designs Ltd. Finestra Designs Ltd. (Finestra) applied under s. 37(b) of the Personal Information Protection Act t... more
Finestra Designs Ltd. (Finestra) applied under s. 37(b) of the Personal Information Protection Act to disregard the respondent’s request for personal information, saying that the request was frivolous and/or vexatious. The adjudicator declined to consider the application because the access request was already overdue when the application was made.
F24-13 Feb 20, 2024 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) provide records relating to public opinion... more
An applicant requested the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) provide records relating to public opinion polls conducted from January to September 2020. The Ministry provided records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to some but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose some of the information.
F24-12 Feb 20, 2024 Thompson Rivers University An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related to an external investig... more
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
F24-11 Feb 12, 2024 British Columbia Power and Hydro Authority A journalist requested a copy of an evaluation report on the bids for a contract regarding the Site ... more
A journalist requested a copy of an evaluation report on the bids for a contract regarding the Site C Dam project. The British Columbia Power and Hydro Authority (BC Hydro) disclosed the report but withheld information under s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of the public body), s. 19(1) (harm to individual health or safety), s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests), and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 19(1), s. 21(1) and s. 22(1) applied to some of the information, but that s. 17(1) did not apply to any information. The adjudicator ordered BC Hydro to disclose some of the information.
F24-10 Feb 12, 2024 Metro Vancouver Transit Police An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) in... more
An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.
P24-03 Feb 7, 2024 Guild Yule LLP An applicant requested his personal information from Guild Yule LLP (GY), a law firm, under the Pers... more
An applicant requested his personal information from Guild Yule LLP (GY), a law firm, under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). GY had represented some of the defendants in a lawsuit in which the applicant was the plaintiff. GY disclosed some records to the applicant but withheld some of the records containing the applicant’s personal information under s. 23(3)(a) of PIPA (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator found that GY was authorized to withhold the records because solicitor-client privilege applied to them.
F24-09 Feb 7, 2024 Board of Education of School District No. 43 The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide hi... more
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
F24-08 Feb 7, 2024 Vancouver Island Health Authority The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) for records related to Island Health’s decision to delay publishing certain test results on the MyHealth patient portal. Island Health withheld the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), 15(1)(l), and 22(1) of FIPPA, as well as s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The adjudicator confirmed Island Health’s decision under s. 15(1)(l) of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act in full, and its decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA in part. The adjudicator ordered Island Health to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA.
F24-07 Jan 31, 2024 Provincial Health Services Authority An applicant requested the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) provide access, under the Fre... more
An applicant requested the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to statistical information related to COVID-19 and vaccination status. PHSA argued that it did not have a record that responded to the request, and it was not required to create one under s. 6(2) (duty to assist applicant) of FIPPA. PHSA also said that if it was required to create a record, s. 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 6(2) does not require PHSA create the record requested by the applicant and it was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).
F24-06 Jan 31, 2024 Provincial Health Services Authority An applicant requested the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) provide access, under the Fre... more
An applicant requested the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to statistical information related to COVID-19 and vaccination status. PHSA argued that it did not have a record that responded to the request, and it was not required to create one under s. 6(2) (duty to assist applicant) of FIPPA. PHSA also said that if it was required to create a record, s. 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 6(2) does not require PHSA create the record requested by the applicant and it was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).
F24-05 Jan 25, 2024 Fraser Health Authority An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to all medical records relating to his mother (the deceased). FHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5 of FIPPA. FHA also refused him access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
P24-02 Jan 15, 2024 Green Apple Art Center An applicant requested information from Green Apple Art Center (Green Apple) under the Personal Info... more
An applicant requested information from Green Apple Art Center (Green Apple) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Green Apple did not respond. During the inquiry, Green Apple provided some of the requested information to the applicant. The Adjudicator found that Green Apple failed to meet its obligations under s. 29(1) (time limit for response) and ordered Green Apple to respond to the request within three weeks, in compliance with the requirements of ss. 28 and 30 of PIPA.
F24-04 Jan 11, 2024 Nelson Police Department The complainant is a former police officer who requested records from the Nelson Police Department (... more
The complainant is a former police officer who requested records from the Nelson Police Department (NPD). After receiving the request, NPD produced a fee estimate under s. 75(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), which the complainant asked the OIPC to review. The adjudicator found that the complainant’s request was for his own personal information and therefore, under s. 75(3) of FIPPA, NPD was not authorized to charge a fee. Given this, the adjudicator found it unnecessary to also consider whether the fee was properly calculated under s. 75(1) of FIPPA and Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation.
F24-03 Jan 11, 2024 College of Pharmacists of British Columbia The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) received a request from an individual who r... more
The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) received a request from an individual who requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the College’s investigation of a pharmacist. The College provided the individual with access to most of the information in the responsive records but withheld some information under various FIPPA exceptions to access. The individual requested a review of the College’s decision. The issues between the parties were eventually narrowed down to the College’s decision to withhold information in a particular record under both s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) of FIPPA. A central issue between the parties was whether the disputed record qualified as a report under s. 13(2)(k). Except for a small amount of information, the adjudicator found the College correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information at issue and that s. 13(2)(k) did not apply to the disputed record. For the small amount of information that the College was not authorized to withhold under s. 13(1), the adjudicator also found s. 12(3)(b) did not apply to this information and ordered the College to disclose it.
P24-01 Jan 10, 2024 Strathcona Community Policing Centre An applicant requested his personal information from the Strathcona Community Policing Centre. The C... more
An applicant requested his personal information from the Strathcona Community Policing Centre. The Centre provided some information to the applicant but refused access to the remaining information under ss. 23(4)(a), (c) and (d) of the Personal Information Protection Act. The adjudicator found that the Centre was required to refuse to disclose most of the information under ss. 23(4)(c) and/or (d). The adjudicator found that s. 23(4)(a) did not apply. However, the adjudicator found that s. 23(5) required the Centre to disclose some portions of the information in dispute to the applicant.
F24-02 Jan 10, 2024 University of British Columbia The University of British Columbia (University) made an application, under s. 43(c)(ii) of the Freed... more
The University of British Columbia (University) made an application, under s. 43(c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) for authority to disregard a number of outstanding access requests and any future access requests made by, or on behalf, of an access applicant. The access applicant later withdrew all their access requests that the University sought authority to disregard under s. 43(c)(ii). However, the University requested the OIPC proceed with its s. 43 application to determine its request for future relief. The adjudicator determined it would be inappropriate to grant the University’s request for future relief under s. 43. The University was not authorized to disregard any future access requests made by, or on behalf of, the applicant.
F24-01 Jan 3, 2024 The Town of Qualicum Beach An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records relating to the investigation of claims of bullying and harassment. These claims were made by one member of the Town of Qualicum Beach’s (Town) Council against other members of the Council. The Town withheld information from the responsive records under various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the Town’s decision under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator held that s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) did not apply to the information not properly withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator ordered the Town to disclose the information it was not authorized to withhold under s. 13(1) or required to withhold under s. 22(1).
F23-110 Dec 20, 2023 Law Society of British Columbia An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records relating to professional practice complaints he filed against multiple lawyers. The Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) withheld information from the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed the Law Society’s decision to withhold information from the responsive records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy).
F23-109 Dec 18, 2023 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires c... more
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
F23-108 Dec 18, 2023 Municipality of North Cowichan The applicant made an access request to the Municipality of North Cowichan (Municipality) for record... more
The applicant made an access request to the Municipality of North Cowichan (Municipality) for records relating to a society, an organization and certain named individuals. The Municipality provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of exceptions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the Municipality was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy).
F23-107 Dec 18, 2023 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry of Attorney General related to a c... more
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry of Attorney General related to a certain company and created within a specific time frame. The Ministry identified responsive records but withheld them in their entirety under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold most, but not all, of the responsive records under s. 14. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to release the records that were not covered by s. 14 to the applicant.
F23-106 Dec 15, 2023 Thompson Rivers University The applicant requested that Thompson Rivers University (TRU) provide him with access to its communi... more
The applicant requested that Thompson Rivers University (TRU) provide him with access to its communications with an investigator that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and required TRU to refuse to disclose that information. The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
F23-105 Dec 4, 2023 City of Vancouver A journalist requested from the City of Vancouver (City), under the Freedom of Information and Prote... more
A journalist requested from the City of Vancouver (City), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the bids for three requests for proposal (RFPs) for nearly 900 units of affordable housing. A third-party objected to the City’s decision about how it would sever the third party’s three bids. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose it to the journalist.
F23-101 Dec 1, 2023 Douglas College The applicant, an instructor at Douglas College, requested that the college provide her with all rec... more
The applicant, an instructor at Douglas College, requested that the college provide her with all records related to her employment. Douglas College disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third’s party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose the information it was not authorised or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1), and to provide a summary of certain information supplied in confidence about the applicant under s. 22(5).
F23-104 Nov 30, 2023 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice c... more
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
F23-103 Nov 30, 2023 City of Burnaby An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all records pertaining to himself in the City of Burnaby’s (City) correspondence with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency. The City provided the applicant with partial access to the records but withheld some information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator determined that some of the withheld records were not responsive to the applicant’s request. The adjudicator further determined that the City was authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), and most of the information withheld under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose almost all of the information withheld under s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) that could not be withheld under other exceptions. The adjudicator ordered the City to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose.
F23-102 Nov 29, 2023 Vancouver Island Health Authority An applicant requested from the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) a copy of a police report c... more
An applicant requested from the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) a copy of a police report concerning him in its possession. VIHA withheld portions of the report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 22(1) applied to all of the information at issue and required VIHA to refuse to disclose it.
F23-99 Nov 23, 2023 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for access to records containing information about himself and his communications with various public bodies. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) disclosed some information to the applicant but withheld other information under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege). The Ministry also disputed the applicant's claim that the public interest required disclosure under s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose access to all of the information withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator also found that s. 25(1) did not require the Ministry to disclose the information in dispute.
F23-100 Nov 23, 2023 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development An applicant requested records relating to conditional water licences from the Ministry of Forests, ... more
An applicant requested records relating to conditional water licences from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records but withheld some information in the records relying on several different exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined the Ministry properly applied s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) to withhold the information at issue. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the information at issue under ss. 15(1)(l) (security of a communications system) and 18(a) (harm to the conservation of heritage sites). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information at issue under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). Lastly, the adjudicator found that s. 3(5)(a) applies to some of the records at issue, thus they fall outside the scope of FIPPA.
F23-98 Nov 22, 2023 New Westminster Police Department The New Westminster Police Department (Department) requested authorization to disregard a portion of... more
The New Westminster Police Department (Department) requested authorization to disregard a portion of an access request under s. 43(c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the request was not excessively broad and, therefore, did not authorize the Department to disregard the access request under s. 43(c)(i). The adjudicator also declined to permit the Department to disregard the access request under s. 43 generally.
F23-97 Nov 16, 2023 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed wi... more
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
F23-96 Nov 10, 2023 City of Vancouver An applicant requested access to records relating to a development project held by the City of Vanco... more
An applicant requested access to records relating to a development project held by the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld some information in the responsive records, citing multiple exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the City was authorized to refuse to disclose all the information it withheld.
F23-95 Nov 10, 2023 Metro Vancouver The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (app... more
The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (applicant) requested records from the Metro Vancouver Regional District (Metro Vancouver). These records included a copy of a report Metro Vancouver had prepared for WorkSafeBC regarding an incident at a dam that resulted in the deaths of two members of the public. Metro Vancouver disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), s. 19(1) (harm to public safety) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The applicant raised the application of s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25(1) applied. The adjudicator ordered Metro Vancouver to disclose the report.
F23-94 Nov 3, 2023 British Columbia Utilities Commission The City of Richmond requested from the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) records relatin... more
The City of Richmond requested from the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) records relating to the appointment of two individuals as Commissioners of BCUC. BCUC disclosed some records but withheld the remainder under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The City of Richmond raised the application of s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25(1) did not apply. He also found that s. 22(1) applied to most but not all of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered BCUC to disclose some of the information.
F23-93 Nov 1, 2023 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested access to information about an assessment of its property transfers conducte... more
The applicant requested access to information about an assessment of its property transfers conducted by the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) under the Property Transfer Tax Act (BC) and the Ministry's review of the applicant's objection to this assessment. The adjudicator reviewed the Ministry's decision to withhold some responsive information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. She determined the Ministry was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and ordered the Ministry to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose.
F23-92 Oct 31, 2023 Provincial Health Services Authority (BC Emergency Health Services) The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) for access to records relating to her deceased father (the deceased). BCEHS responded that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased and refused the applicant access to the responsive records under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator also found that BCEHS was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 22(1).
F23-91 Oct 31, 2023 City of Burnaby An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a residential property. The City of Burnaby (City) withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. In some cases, the City applied one or more FIPPA exceptions to the same information. The City also argued some information was not responsive to the applicant’s access request and, therefore, could be withheld. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the City’s decision to refuse access. The adjudicator found the information withheld by the City as “non-responsive” was in fact responsive to the access request and ordered the City to disclose some of that information. The adjudicator also determined the City could not withhold any of the information at issue under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences). However, the adjudicator decided the City properly applied s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information withheld from the responsive records. The City was ordered to disclose the information that the adjudicator determined could not be withheld under a FIPPA exception to access.
F23-90 Oct 26, 2023 City of Delta The City of Delta (City) applied under ss. 43(a) and 43(c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Pro... more
The City of Delta (City) applied under ss. 43(a) and 43(c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for authorization to disregard seven access requests it says were made by the respondent. The City also requested prospective relief, including authorization to disregard all future requests made by the respondent for a period of two years. The adjudicator declined to consider one of the access requests because it was overdue at the time of the City’s s. 43 application (an access request that a public body does not respond to by the deadlines set out in FIPPA is considered an overdue request). The adjudicator also declined to consider two other access requests because the City had already responded to them in accordance with s. 8 of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to disregard the other four requests under s. 43(a) as well as future requests, over and above one open request at a time, for a period of one year.
F23-89 Oct 25, 2023 College of Physicians and Surgeons Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the applicant requested info... more
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the applicant requested information from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) regarding complaints made about the applicant and the College's response to the applicant's concerns about her medical corporation. The College disclosed most of the information to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator determined the College was not authorized to withhold any of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) but was authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14. The adjudicator ordered the College to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose.
F23-88 Oct 18, 2023 Township of Langley The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Township of Langley (Township) for access to records containing information about noise complaints related to the applicant's land and a neighbourhood the applicant specified. The Township withheld information in the records under several exceptions to disclosure in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Township was not authorized to withhold the information in dispute under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 15(1)(d) (confidential source of law enforcement information). The adjudicator also determined the Township was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Township to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
F23-87 Oct 17, 2023 Office of the Premier The Office of the Premier (Office) requested that the adjudicator correct an error in Order F23-75 (... more
The Office of the Premier (Office) requested that the adjudicator correct an error in Order F23-75 (Order). The adjudicator found the Order did not fully dispose of an issue due to an inadvertent procedural error. The adjudicator issued this new order and held that s. 16(1)(b) did not authorize the Office to withhold the information at issue.
F23-86 Oct 11, 2023 City of Vancouver The City of Vancouver issued a request for proposals to develop and operate affordable housing proje... more
The City of Vancouver issued a request for proposals to develop and operate affordable housing projects on several city-owned sites. An applicant requested copies of all of the proposals that were submitted. The City decided to disclose an entire copy of one proposal that it had received from a third party. That third party asked the OIPC to review the City’s decision on the basis some of the information in their proposal must be withheld under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator required the City to refuse to disclose all of the information in dispute because disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the business interests of the third party.
F23-85 Oct 4, 2023 Thompson Rivers University An applicant requested records and correspondence relating to the terms of reference given to an ext... more
An applicant requested records and correspondence relating to the terms of reference given to an external investigator retained by Thompson Rivers University (TRU). TRU disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. TRU applied both ss. 13 and 14 to the same information. Given the finding that s. 14 did not apply to some of the information, the adjudicator ordered TRU, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under s. 13(1) for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.
F23-84 Oct 4, 2023 Thompson Rivers University The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for all emails a former vice-president at TRU sent and received relating to a workplace complaint involving the applicant. TRU withheld most of the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold the records it withheld under s. 14. As a result, the adjudicator did not need to consider ss. 13 and 22.
F23-83 Oct 4, 2023 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created... more
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created within a specific date range. The Ministry refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA but only s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) was in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry correctly applied s. 22 to most of the information in dispute but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
F23-82 Oct 4, 2023 Thompson Rivers University An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for records related to a submission he made to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. TRU disclosed some records and withheld what it called “draft letters” under s. 13(1) of FIPPA (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that most of the withheld information did not fall under s. 13(1) and ordered TRU to disclose it. The adjudicator also found that some information (editorial suggestions for changes to a draft letter) did fall under s. 13(1) and confirmed TRU’s decision to withhold this information.
F23-81 Sep 27, 2023 District of Summerland An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)... more
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information revealing the total legal fees incurred by The Corporation of the District of Summerland (the District) at an arbitration and appeal for an employment law matter. The District withheld all of the information pertaining to legal fees under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (protection of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the aggregate sum of legal fees could not be withheld under s. 14 because there was no reasonable possibility that disclosure could reveal privileged communications. The adjudicator further found that the aggregated sum of fees was not personal information, so the District was not required or permitted to refuse disclosure under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator required the District under s. 6(2) to create a record containing the aggregate sum because doing so would not unreasonably interfere with the District’s operations.
F23-80 Sep 25, 2023 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority This inquiry concerns the medical records of a deceased individual (the deceased). An applicant, who... more
This inquiry concerns the medical records of a deceased individual (the deceased). An applicant, who is the deceased’s mother, requested that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) provide her access to the deceased’s medical records. VCHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation, and also on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not making a request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold the record under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
F23-79 Sep 22, 2023 WorkSafeBC A claimant under the Workers’ Compensation Act complained that WorkSafeBC had used and disclosed his... more
A claimant under the Workers’ Compensation Act complained that WorkSafeBC had used and disclosed his personal information in contravention of ss. 32 and 33 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The complaint concerned WorkSafeBC granting employees of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal access to the complainant’s claim file on the WorkSafe claims management system. The adjudicator found that WorkSafe had used and disclosed the complainant’s personal information only for the purpose of administering his claim file, which was authorized under ss. 32 and 33 of FIPPA.
P23-12 Sep 21, 2023 Dexterra Group Inc. An individual complained that an organization contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (P... more
An individual complained that an organization contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) when it disclosed information about her to the lawyer of the parties opposing her in a legal dispute. The adjudicator found that the organization disclosed personal information but PIPA did not permit the disclosure. More specifically, the adjudicator found that PIPA did not deem the complainant to have consented to the disclosure of her personal information or permit the disclosure without her consent.
F23-78 Sep 21, 2023 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia An applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to th... more
An applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
F23-77 Sep 20, 2023 Provincial Health Services Authority Both an applicant and a third party requested a review of the decision of the Provincial Health Serv... more
Both an applicant and a third party requested a review of the decision of the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) to disclose in part, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an agreement for the provision of information technology services by the third party to PHSA. The third party asserted that PHSA must withhold additional information under s. 21(1) (financial harm to a third party). The applicant asserted that the PHSA must disclose all of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to any information and ordered PHSA to disclose the record in its entirety.
F23-76 Sep 20, 2023 Ministry of Health The Ministry of Health requested the Commissioner exercise his discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Fre... more
The Ministry of Health requested the Commissioner exercise his discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to decline holding an inquiry into its decision to refuse an applicant access to two requested records. Among other things, the Ministry of Health argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that it does not have custody or control of those records. The adjudicator found it was plain and obvious the records sought by the applicant were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and, therefore, fall outside the scope of FIPPA. As a result, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry of Health’s s. 56(1) application and the upcoming inquiry was cancelled.
F23-75 Sep 18, 2023 Office of the Premier The applicant requested access to records held by the Office of the Premier (“Office”) of its corres... more
The applicant requested access to records held by the Office of the Premier (“Office”) of its correspondence with Pacheedaht First Nation (Pacheedaht) representatives regarding forestry in Pacheedaht lands. The Office responded and withheld some information pursuant to s. 16(1)(a)(iii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the Ministry was not authorized to refuse access under s. 16(1)(a)(iii).
F23-74 Sep 18, 2023 Public Service Agency An applicant requested access to records relating to his employment held by the Public Service Agenc... more
An applicant requested access to records relating to his employment held by the Public Service Agency (PSA). PSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in them under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found PSA was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also found PSA was required to refuse the applicant access to some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered PSA to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
P23-11 Sep 15, 2023 Epic Rides The applicant requested information from Epic Rides under the Personal Information Protection Act (P... more
The applicant requested information from Epic Rides under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Epic Rides did not respond, but stated during the inquiry that it did not have the applicant’s personal information under its control. The adjudicator found that Epic Rides failed to meet its obligations under s. 29 and ordered Epic Rides to respond to the request within 30 days, in compliance with the requirements of ss. 28 and 30 of PIPA.
P23-10 Sep 13, 2023 Abercrombie & Associates Chartered Professional Accountants An individual (complainant) requested access to certain documents from an organization under the Per... more
An individual (complainant) requested access to certain documents from an organization under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The complainant complained that the organization failed to provide him with his personal information or tell him what PIPA provision it was relying on to refuse to provide him with his personal information. The adjudicator found that the organization did not make a reasonable effort to respond to the complainant as accurately and completely as reasonable possible under s. 28(b) of PIPA. The adjudicator also found that the organization did not make a reasonable effort to provide the requested personal information under s. 28(c) of PIPA. The adjudicator ordered the organization to perform its duties under ss. 28(b) and (c) of PIPA.
F23-73 Sep 13, 2023 Thompson Rivers University The applicant requested records related to TRU’s internal discussion and action concerning a documen... more
The applicant requested records related to TRU’s internal discussion and action concerning a document the applicant provided to TRU at TRU’s request. TRU released some records to the applicant but withheld other records either in part or in their entirety under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). However, only ss. 13(1) and 14 were in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that TRU is authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14 and it was not necessary to consider the application of s. 13(1).
F23-72 Sep 12, 2023 Fraser Health Authority An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
F23-71 Sep 12, 2023 Thompson Rivers University An instructor at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) requested a copy of a report into the investigatio... more
An instructor at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) requested a copy of a report into the investigation of a workplace complaint against him. TRU withheld the entire report under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information but ordered TRU to disclose the remainder.
F23-70 Sep 11, 2023 Independent Investigations Office In a court-approved partial reconsideration of Order F23-07, the adjudicator determined that s. 3(3)... more
In a court-approved partial reconsideration of Order F23-07, the adjudicator determined that s. 3(3)(a) applies to the records at issue, thus they fall outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Therefore, the applicant has no right to access those records under FIPPA.
P23-09 Sep 7, 2023 DLA Piper (Canada) LLP The applicant requested her personal information from DLA Piper (Canada) LLP (DLA Piper) under the P... more
The applicant requested her personal information from DLA Piper (Canada) LLP (DLA Piper) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator found that ss. 23(4)(c) (disclosure would reveal personal information about another individual) and/or 23(4)(d) (disclosure would reveal the identity of an individual who has provided personal information about another individual) applied to the applicant’s personal information in two email chains. However, the adjudicator found that DLA Piper was able to provide the applicant with some of her personal information under s. 23(5) and ordered DLA Piper to disclose that information to the applicant.
F23-69 Aug 31, 2023 Ministry of Children and Family Development An applicant requested the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) provide access to ... more
An applicant requested the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) provide access to records about birth alerts. The Ministry initially withheld information in the records under several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Most of the issues were resolved at the outset of the inquiry, so the adjudicator only had to decide if s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) applied to the records. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to refuse access under s. 14.
F23-68 Aug 22, 2023 District of Lantzville The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the District of Lantzville (District) for copies of texts to and from a named District councillor regarding District matters. The District withheld the responsive records on the basis that they are not in its custody or under its control within the meaning of ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the records are not in the District’s custody or control under s. 3(1) and therefore FIPPA does not apply.
F23-67 Aug 22, 2023 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure A property owner requested a copy of the Property Acquisition Manual of the Ministry of Transportati... more
A property owner requested a copy of the Property Acquisition Manual of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the record but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 17(1) (financial harm to the public body). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) did not apply and he ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it had withheld under that section. He found that ss. 17(1) applied to some of the information and authorized the Ministry to withhold it but ordered the Ministry to disclose the remainder.
F23-66 Aug 22, 2023 Ministry of Finance, Public Service Agency The applicant requested access to a variety of records containing information pertaining to a workpl... more
The applicant requested access to a variety of records containing information pertaining to a workplace investigation. The public body refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed that the public body correctly applied s. 13 (advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information it withheld under those sections. The adjudicator determined that the public body must disclose the balance of the information at issue.
P23-08 Aug 21, 2023 Local 891, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada An individual complained that the organization used, disclosed and failed to protect her personal in... more
An individual complained that the organization used, disclosed and failed to protect her personal information contrary to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The organization disputed these allegations and argued that if its use or disclosure of the individual’s personal information is found to be unreasonable under either ss. 14 or 17 PIPA, those provisions unjustifiably infringe its freedom of expression and freedom of association under ss. 2(b) and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The adjudicator found that PIPA authorized the organization, in part, to use but not disclose the individual’s personal information, but the organization had not complied with its duty under s. 34 to make reasonable security arrangements to protect the personal information. Finally, the adjudicator decided there was no need to decide the Charter issue because she did not find the organization failed to comply with ss. 14 or 17 of PIPA.
F23-65 Aug 16, 2023 Thompson Rivers University The applicant requested communications related to instructions and guidance given to a Thompson Rive... more
The applicant requested communications related to instructions and guidance given to a Thompson Rivers University (TRU) employee about responding to media inquiries that related to him personally. TRU disclosed responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under ss. 14 and some of the information it withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and ordered TRU to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
F23-64 Aug 16, 2023 Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure In Order F23-51, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure (Ministry) ... more
In Order F23-51, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure (Ministry) to produce some information to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner so that she could make a decision respecting the public body’s application of s. 16(1)(a)(iii) and (c) (harm to intergovernmental relations) to that information. The Ministry complied and produced that information for the adjudicator’s review. In this order, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the information that remained in dispute under s. 16(1)(a)(iii) but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
F23-63 Aug 15, 2023 Ministry of Municipal Affairs An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (Ministry) for records relating to Cultus Lake Park. The Ministry provided access to some records but withheld some information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The Ministry later decided to withdraw its reliance on ss. 12(1) and 13. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under ss. 14, 16 and 22.
F23-62 Aug 14, 2023 Ministry of Citizens' Services An applicant requested the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (MCS) provide access to records about priv... more
An applicant requested the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (MCS) provide access to records about privacy complaints it received about birth alerts. MCS initially withheld information in the records under several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Most of the issues were resolved at the outset of the inquiry, so the adjudicator only had to decide if s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) applied to the records. During the inquiry, the applicant also raised the issue of s. 25 (public interest disclosure) but was not permitted to add that issue into the inquiry. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
F23-61 Aug 10, 2023 Ministry of Attorney General The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) applied for authorization to disregard one outstanding a... more
The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) applied for authorization to disregard one outstanding access request and certain future access requests under ss. 43(a) and 43(c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the outstanding request was vexatious under s. 43(a). The adjudicator also found the outstanding request was systematic and responding to it would unreasonably interfere with the Ministry’s operations under s. 43(c)(ii). The adjudicator authorized the Ministry to disregard the outstanding request and future requests, over and above one request at a time, for a period of five years.
F23-60 Aug 9, 2023 University of Victoria An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of Victoria (University) for access to records containing information about the University's response to an allegation that the applicant breached the University's Sexualized Violence Prevention and Response Policy. The University withheld the majority of information in the records citing s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal information) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the University was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
F23-59 Aug 8, 2023 University of British Columbia Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested recor... more
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records from the University of British Columbia (UBC). Approximately six months later, UBC still had not provided the applicant with a response. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review UBC’s failure to respond to his access request as required under FIPPA. The adjudicator found that UBC had failed to fulfil its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the applicant by a set date.
F23-58 Aug 3, 2023 Fraser Health Authority An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) f... more
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
F23-57 Aug 2, 2023 City of Port Coquitlam The applicant requested meeting minutes and communications containing information about the process ... more
The applicant requested meeting minutes and communications containing information about the process and history of how a parking lot development in the City of Port Coquitlam (the City) became a condominium development. The City disclosed responsive records but withheld information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to withhold some information under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1), but not under ss. 14 and 17(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to give the applicant access to the information the City was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14 and 17(1).
P23-07 Jul 31, 2023 Investaflex An applicant requested access to her personal information under the control of Investaflex Financial... more
An applicant requested access to her personal information under the control of Investaflex Financial Group Ltd. (Investaflex). In response, Investaflex provided access to some information but refused to disclose other information to the applicant under ss. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege) and 23(4)(c) (personal information about another individual) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator found Investaflex was authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 23(3)(a) since legal advice privilege applied to that information. The adjudicator found that Investaflex was required under s. 23(4)(c) to withhold most, but not all, of the information at issue as the disclosure would reveal personal information about another individual. The adjudicator also found that a small amount of the applicant’s personal information could be provided to the applicant under s. 23(5).
F23-56 Jul 26, 2023 Provincial Health Services Authority An applicant requested their own personal information from the Provincial Health Services Authority ... more
An applicant requested their own personal information from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). PHSA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions under Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a property or system) applied to the information that PHSA withheld under those exceptions. The adjudicator also required PHSA to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered PHSA to disclose the information to which s. 22(1) did not apply.
F23-55 Jul 20, 2023 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) A complainant made 13 requests for video images of himself on transit vehicles from TransLink. Trans... more
A complainant made 13 requests for video images of himself on transit vehicles from TransLink. TransLink responded denying access citing s. 6(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the recorded images stored on TransLink’s CCTV system were records as defined in Schedule 1 of FIPPA. He found that TransLink had incorrectly applied s. 6(2) and failed to meet its obligations under s. 6(1). He also found that FIPPA required TransLink to make every reasonable effort to retain copies of records responsive to requests until the complainant had exhausted all avenues of review. The adjudicator confirmed that TransLink’s responses to the complainant did not contravene ss. 8(1) or 9.
P23-06 Jul 14, 2023 DLA Piper (Canada) LLP An applicant requested her personal information from DLA Piper (Canada) LLP (DLA Piper) under the Pe... more
An applicant requested her personal information from DLA Piper (Canada) LLP (DLA Piper) under the Personal Information Protection Act. In response, DLA Piper identified 22 sets of documents containing references to the applicant but refused to disclose the information under ss. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege), 23(4)(c) (personal information about another individual) and 23(4)(d) (identity of an individual who has provided personal information about another individual). The adjudicator found that the information in dispute was the applicant’s personal information and that s. 23(3)(a) authorized DLA Piper to refuse access to most of it. The adjudicator ordered DLA Piper to produce the remaining documents for the purpose of determining whether ss. 23(4)(c) and (d) applied to the remaining information in dispute.
F23-54 Jul 11, 2023 Ministry of Children and Family Development An individual complained the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) improperly discl... more
An individual complained the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) improperly disclosed information about them contrary to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry argued the disclosure was authorized under s. 79(a) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (Act), which allows a director, without the consent of any person, to disclose information obtained under the Act if the disclosure is necessary to ensure the safety or well-being of a child. The adjudicator determined that the issue for consideration in the inquiry was whether the Ministry contravened the Act. After determining and applying the appropriate process to assess the disclosure complaint, the adjudicator concluded the Ministry had not contravened the Act since the disclosure was made in accordance with s. 79(a).
F23-53 Jun 29, 2023 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) for records about himself and other records related to the Law Society’s enforcement, complaints, investigations, and disciplinary procedures. The Law Society withheld the records and information in dispute under ss. 13(1), 14, 15(1)(l), and 22(1). The adjudicator found that the Law Society was authorized to refuse to disclose the records and information it withheld under ss. 14 and 15(1)(l) and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that the Law Society is not required or authorized to refuse to disclose some information it withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and ordered the Law Society to disclose that information to the applicant.
F23-52 Jun 29, 2023 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) for records about himself, including records related to an investigation that he was the subject of. The Law Society withheld the records in dispute in their entirety under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Law Society was authorized to withhold the records in dispute under s. 14. As a result, it was not necessary to consider ss. 13(1) or 22(1).
F23-51 Jun 28, 2023 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure The applicant requested access to a variety of records containing his personal information. The Mini... more
The applicant requested access to a variety of records containing his personal information. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the Ministry correctly applied ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information at issue. However, the adjudicator found the Ministry was not authorized to withhold other information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14, 16(1) and 22(1). In some of these records, the Ministry applied both s. 14 and 16(1) to the same information. Given their finding that s. 14 does not apply to that information, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce some of the s. 14 records so the adjudicator could decide if s. 16(1) applied.
F23-50 Jun 26, 2023 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development An individual requested from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural D... more
An individual requested from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry) any records regarding himself and his business. The Ministry responded to the request by providing the complainant with some records. The complainant complained that the Ministry had not conducted an adequate search for records in accordance with s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that Ministry had not conducted an adequate search in its first response to the request but subsequently provided an adequate response after a further search for records.
F23-49 Jun 20, 2023 The Board of Education of School District 35 (Langley) Parents of a student with special needs requested copies from the Board of Education of School Distr... more
Parents of a student with special needs requested copies from the Board of Education of School District 35 (SD35) of records relating to their child’s educational supports, accommodations, educational plans, educational assistance resources, connections program and any other communications between individuals they identified. SD35 disclosed some records but withheld information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a system), and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information but ordered SD35 to disclose the remainder. He found that ss. 15(1)(l) did not apply to any of the information and ordered SD35 to disclose it.
F23-48 Jun 19, 2023 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of... more
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
F23-47 Jun 19, 2023 Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (the Ministry... more
An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (the Ministry), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), for all records and communications relating to himself and his company in the Ministry’s possession. The Ministry withheld information under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 16(1)(c) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) and various other sections of FIPPA. In Order F23-41, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold some information under s. 14 and ordered the Ministry to produce that information to the OIPC so the adjudicator could determine whether the Ministry was authorized to withhold it under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) or (c). In the instant order, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the information that remained in dispute under s. 16(1)(a)(iii), but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
F23-46 Jun 16, 2023 British Columbia Housing Management Commission An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the ... more
An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the contract between the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BC Housing) and Ideaspace Consulting Inc. (Ideaspace). BC Housing decided to disclose the records but Ideaspace objected, saying s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of FIPPA applied to the records. Ideaspace argued later that the records in dispute were not the requested contract. The adjudicator found that they were and that s. 21(1) did not apply to them. The adjudicator ordered BC Housing to disclose the records to the applicant.
F23-45 Jun 9, 2023 Simon Fraser University An applicant requested records relating to the termination of her employment with Simon Fraser Unive... more
An applicant requested records relating to the termination of her employment with Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in them under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that SFU was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and it was not required to withhold the disputed information under s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered SFU to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
F23-44 Jun 8, 2023 Ministry of Health A journalist requested from the Ministry of Health (Ministry), under the Freedom of Information and ... more
A journalist requested from the Ministry of Health (Ministry), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), all records associated with a newspaper article the Provincial Health Officer issued regarding masks and COVID-19. The Ministry disclosed the responsive records except for a third party’s email addresses, which it withheld under s. 19(1)(a) (harm to public health and safety) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 19(1)(a) applied to the email addresses and confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold them. It was not necessary to consider s. 22(1).
F23-43 Jun 6, 2023 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia An applicant requested records related to his dealings with the College of Physicians and Surgeons o... more
An applicant requested records related to his dealings with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (the College). The College provided the responsive records, but withheld information in them under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the College was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14, and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). However, the adjudicator determined that the College was not authorized to refuse to disclose information under s. 19(1), and not required to refuse to disclose the balance of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
F23-42 Jun 1, 2023 The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General related to ... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General related to the estimated costs for implementing the Community Safety Act. The Ministry provided access to some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 16 (intergovernmental relations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access in part under ss. 13(1) and 14, but not under s. 16, and that it was not required to refuse access under s. 12(1), except for two portions to which ss. 12(1), 13(1) and 16 are yet to be determined. The adjudicator rejected the applicant’s argument that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applies. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose to the applicant the information that it is not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, and 16(1)(a)(ii). The adjudicator also ordered the Ministry, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce two pages of the records in dispute to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the purposes of adjudicating the other exceptions.
F23-41 May 26, 2023 Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (the Ministry... more
An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (the Ministry), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), for all records and communications relating to himself and his company in the Ministry’s possession. The Ministry withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 16(1)(c) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17 (harm to financial interests of a public body), 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22(1) (harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The parties resolved the disputes over ss. 17 and 19 during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 22(1) in full, and its decision to withhold information under s. 14 in part. As a result of the overlap in the Ministry’s application of the provisions, the adjudicator was not required to determine the Ministry’s application of ss. 13(1) or 16(1)(c).
F23-40 May 26, 2023 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia The applicant requested access to all documents relating to him and his complaint against a named ph... more
The applicant requested access to all documents relating to him and his complaint against a named physician. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College correctly applied s. 22(1).
P23-05 May 25, 2023 FHBW Investments Co. Ltd. A tenant complained that the organization, FHBW Investments Co. Ltd. (FHBW), owner of the rental bui... more
A tenant complained that the organization, FHBW Investments Co. Ltd. (FHBW), owner of the rental building in which she lives, was collecting, using and disclosing her video images in contravention of s. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator agreed and ordered FHBW to disable the video cameras, to stop collecting, using and disclosing her video images and to delete the video images.
F23-39 May 25, 2023 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested copies of records regarding polling relating to the Covid-19 pandemic that a ... more
An applicant requested copies of records regarding polling relating to the Covid-19 pandemic that a contracted service provider had created for the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations). The adjudicator found that the Ministry correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information.
F23-38 May 18, 2023 Provincial Health Services Authority An individual requested from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) any records that it had... more
An individual requested from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) any records that it had created for the Provincial Health Officer relating to the indoor setting type of Covid-19 transmission. PHSA responded to the request by providing the applicant with one record. The applicant complained that PHSA had not conducted an adequate search for records in accordance with s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that PHSA had conducted an adequate search.
F23-37 May 18, 2023 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) TransLink requested authorization to disregard 18 outstanding access requests from the respondent un... more
TransLink requested authorization to disregard 18 outstanding access requests from the respondent under ss. 43(a) and (c) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that TransLink had not established that the requests were frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(a) or that they were repetitious or systematic under s. 43(c)(ii). The adjudicator declined to provide TransLink with authorization to disregard the outstanding requests.
F23-36 May 18, 2023 City of Burnaby An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)... more
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records about a workplace conduct investigation involving him. The City of Burnaby (City) provided the applicant with partial access to the records, but withheld some information under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and all of the information it withheld under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to withhold some of the information under s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the City to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose.
F23-35 May 12, 2023 City of Richmond The applicant requested all contracts and service awards between the City of Richmond (the City) and... more
The applicant requested all contracts and service awards between the City of Richmond (the City) and the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for 2020 and 2021. The City identified a single agreement that was responsive to the applicant’s request, but withheld it in its entirety under ss. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that neither section applied, and ordered the City to disclose the agreement to the applicant.
P23-04 May 11, 2023 Weyerhaeuser Company Limited An individual complained that her employer violated the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) w... more
An individual complained that her employer violated the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) when it kept a copy of her applications for short-term disability benefits and subsequently submitted them as evidence in a hearing before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). The adjudicator found that the complainant did not give consent for the employer to keep a copy of the short-term disability applications and that PIPA did not authorize the employer to collect the applications without consent. However, the adjudicator found that the complainant was deemed to have consented to the collection of her personal information only for the purpose of sending the short-term disability applications to the benefits provider. The adjudicator found that the employer did not retain the complainant’s personal information in compliance with PIPA.
F23-34 May 8, 2023 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
F23-33 May 4, 2023 Thompson Rivers University An applicant made a request to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and... more
An applicant made a request to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records about his complaint of a conflict of interest. TRU provided the responsive records, but refused to disclose some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold some of the disputed information under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that TRU was required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
F23-32 Apr 25, 2023 City of Vancouver The applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver related to the rezoning of the proper... more
The applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver related to the rezoning of the property surrounding Crofton Manor, a senior’s care facility in the City. The City disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 21 in part, and its decision under s. 22 in full, and ordered the City to disclose some information incorrectly withheld under s. 21 to the applicant.
F23-31 Apr 24, 2023 Provincial Health Services Authority An applicant requested copies of records relating to the quality of supply chains and procurement fr... more
An applicant requested copies of records relating to the quality of supply chains and procurement from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA). PSHA disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations). The adjudicator found that PHSA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information. The adjudicator confirmed the decision of PHSA to withhold the information at issue under s. 13(1).
P23-03 Apr 19, 2023 Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC This inquiry is about whether the organization’s fee estimate in response to the complainant’s acces... more
This inquiry is about whether the organization’s fee estimate in response to the complainant’s access requests is minimal. The adjudicator found that the fee estimate was not minimal and ordered the organization to revise the fee estimate and provide the revised fee estimate to the complainant in writing.
F23-30 Apr 14, 2023 Fraser Health Authority A third party requested a review of the decision of the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) to disclose, i... more
A third party requested a review of the decision of the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) to disclose, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a record containing information about services that the third party was providing to FHA. The third party asserted that FHA must withhold the record under s. 21(1) (financial harm to a third party). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered FHA to disclose the record.
F23-29 Apr 14, 2023 City of Revelstoke An applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstok... more
An applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
F23-28 Apr 13, 2023 Ministry of Education An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a report about the board of education for School District No. 33. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the report, but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry correctly applied s. 22(1) to some of the information withheld in the report. However, the adjudicator found the Ministry was not required to withhold other information under s. 22(1) and ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to that information.
F23-27 Apr 6, 2023 City of Kelowna An applicant requested copies of correspondence between the City of Kelowna (City), the Kelowna deta... more
An applicant requested copies of correspondence between the City of Kelowna (City), the Kelowna detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial government’s Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch. The City disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement). The adjudicator found that the City correctly applied s. 13(1) to most but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the information to which s. 13(1) did not apply. As the City had applied s. 13(1) correctly to all of the information to which it also applied s. 15(1), the adjudicator made no finding with respect to s. 15(1).
F23-26 Mar 31, 2023 City of Burnaby An applicant made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Burnaby (City) for records relating to the end of the former Fire Chief’s employment with the City. The City withheld some information under common law settlement privilege and some under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City could withhold the information under settlement privilege and some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose some of the information it sought to withhold under s. 22(1).
F23-25 Mar 31, 2023 Law Society of British Columbia The applicants made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)... more
The applicants made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) for records from a meeting of the Law Society’s Discipline Committee. The Law Society disclosed some information to the applicants but withheld most of the responsive records in their entirety under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed the Law Society’s decision that it is authorized to refuse to disclose the records in dispute under s. 14. As a result, the adjudicator did not consider s. 22.
F23-24 Mar 29, 2023 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia An applicant made a request to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) ... more
An applicant made a request to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) seeking access to records relating to himself. The applicant submitted to the College that it had a duty to disclose these records to him because disclosure would be in the public interest under s. 25 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the College was not required to disclose the records to the applicant under s. 25.
P23-02 Mar 28, 2023 Firestone & Tyhurst Law An individual complained that Firestone & Tyhurst Law (the Organization) contravened the Personal In... more
An individual complained that Firestone & Tyhurst Law (the Organization) contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) when it collected, used, and disclosed her personal information. The adjudicator found that PIPA permitted the Organization to collect, use, and disclose the complainant’s personal information without her consent for the purpose of providing legal services to a third party.
F23-23 Mar 28, 2023 Ministry of Attorney General, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Health The Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health (Ministries) su... more
The Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health (Ministries) submitted that an individual was abusing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and requested the commissioner grant certain remedies. The adjudicator found that the individual was abusing FIPPA’s review and inquiry processes and cancelled 10 files that were at inquiry and 12 files that were at investigation and mediation. The adjudicator declined, however, to make the orders the Ministries requested regarding future matters that did not yet exist.
F23-22 Mar 28, 2023 Destination British Columbia An applicant requested records related to a 2015 meeting attended by a representative of Destination... more
An applicant requested records related to a 2015 meeting attended by a representative of Destination British Columbia (DBC). DBC released the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 21(2) (information gathered for determining tax liability or collecting a tax), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 21(2). The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator confirmed DBC’s decision to withhold a small amount of information under s. 13(1).
F23-21 Mar 24, 2023 Vancouver Island Health Authority The applicants requested records relating to their child’s medical treatment. Vancouver Island Healt... more
The applicants requested records relating to their child’s medical treatment. Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed most of the responsive records to the applicants but withheld some records pursuant to s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The adjudicator found that Island Health is required to refuse to disclose the records in dispute under s. 51 of the Evidence Act.
F23-20 Mar 24, 2023 Simon Fraser University An applicant requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU... more
An applicant requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
F23-19 Mar 22, 2023 Ministry of Education and Child Care The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Education and Child Care (Ministry) related to ... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Education and Child Care (Ministry) related to the Ministry’s policies regarding third party requests for information and his court claim against the Ministry. The Ministry withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under s. 14 in full, and under s. 13(1) in part, and ordered the Ministry to disclose some information withheld under s. 13(1) to the applicant.
F23-18 Mar 21, 2023 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) provide access to records about its proper... more
An applicant requested the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) provide access to records about its property transfer tax assessment and the related appeal. The Ministry provided records, withholding some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 13 applies to some of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 13.
F23-17 Mar 20, 2023 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a record related to a personal injury claim they made regarding a motor vehicle accident. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provided the applicant with partial access to this record, but withheld information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found ICBC correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) to some of the information withheld in the responsive record. However, the adjudicator determined ICBC was not required or authorized under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22(1) to withhold other information and ordered ICBC to provide the applicant with access to that information.
F23-16 Mar 20, 2023 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority A journalist requested reviews, reports, audits and analyses concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at two he... more
A journalist requested reviews, reports, audits and analyses concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at two health care facilities of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). VCHA disclosed some records but withheld information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a system), s. 17(1) (financial harm to the public body) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information but ordered VCHA to disclose the remainder. He found that ss. 15(1)(l) and 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and ordered VCHA to disclose it.
F23-15 Mar 10, 2023 Ministry of Children and Family Development Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested acces... more
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested access to information in a child protection file held by the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. It also withheld other information under ss. 77(1) (information that would reveal the identity of a reporter) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was required to withhold some information under s. 22 of FIPPA and s. 77(1) of the CFCSA and that it was authorized to withhold some information under s. 77(2)(b) of the CFCSA. However, the adjudicator found those sections did not apply to other information and ordered the Ministry to disclose that information to the applicant.
F23-14 Mar 9, 2023 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him... more
An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.
F23-13 Mar 1, 2023 Simon Fraser University Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested Simon... more
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested Simon Fraser University (University) provide access to a variety of records, including communications between him and other University employees. The applicant was a former instructor with the University. The University withheld information in the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the University was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 13(1) and 22(1). For the information it was not authorized or required to withhold, the University was required to provide the applicant with access to this information. Lastly, the adjudicator found the University was required under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about him in a particular record.
F23-12 Feb 24, 2023 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority A journalist made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
A journalist made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to BC Hydro for access to records related to Site C project board meetings. BC Hydro withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and ordered BC Hydro to disclose the information it was not authorized to withhold under s. 17(1).
F23-11 Feb 24, 2023 Fraser Health Authority An applicant requested copies of all current contracts for laundry services between K-Bro Linen Syst... more
An applicant requested copies of all current contracts for laundry services between K-Bro Linen Systems (K-Bro) and the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA responded to the request by withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to the financial interests of a third party). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered FHA to disclose the information.
F23-10 Feb 16, 2023 BC Pavilion Corporation A journalist requested access to CCTV recordings from two cameras at a BC Pavilion Corporation (PavC... more
A journalist requested access to CCTV recordings from two cameras at a BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) facility. The recording included the last 23 seconds of the life of a film production motorcycle stunt driver. PavCo withheld the recordings under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. The adjudicator upheld the decision of PavCo to deny access to the records.
F23-09 Feb 15, 2023 Vancouver Island Health Authority The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Health Authority) requested the Commissioner exercise their d... more
The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Health Authority) requested the Commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to not conduct an inquiry regarding its decision to refuse an applicant access to a requested record. The Health Authority argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that the applicant already has a copy of the disputed record. The adjudicator determined there is an arguable case that merits adjudication as to whether the applicant is entitled to access the record at issue under FIPPA. Therefore, the adjudicator dismissed the Health Authority’s s. 56(1) application and directed the matter to an inquiry.
F23-08 Feb 14, 2023 Thompson Rivers University An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for copies of any peer review reports that certain faculty members may have received from academic journals. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty members. The adjudicator found that the records were the research materials of its faculty members and outside the scope of FIPPA.
P23-01 Feb 13, 2023 A Daycare The complainants complained that a daycare was contravening the Personal Information Protection Act ... more
The complainants complained that a daycare was contravening the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by collecting their images by means of video surveillance. The adjudicator found that the evidence did not establish that the daycare was collecting the complainants’ images. It was, therefore, not necessary to consider whether the daycare was complying with PIPA’s requirements for the collection of personal information.
F23-07 Feb 13, 2023 Independent Investigations Office An applicant requested records about an investigation conducted by the Independent Investigations Of... more
An applicant requested records about an investigation conducted by the Independent Investigations Office (IIO). The IIO refused to disclose some records under s. 3(3)(a) (court record) and some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(c) (harm to law enforcement), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found s. (3)(3)(a) did not apply to the records in dispute. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding s. 14 and found that ss. 16(1)(b) and 22(1) applied to most, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. However, the adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) did not apply to most of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The IIO was required to respond to the applicant’s request for access to the records that the IIO withheld under s. 3(3)(a). The IIO was required to disclose the information that the IIO was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 15(1)(c), 16(1)(b) and 22(1).
F23-06 Feb 2, 2023 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy An applicant asked the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (Ministry) for access to ... more
An applicant asked the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (Ministry) for access to records relating to an application to amend a specific environmental assessment certificate, including records of consultations with First Nations regarding the certificate. The Ministry provided access to some records but refused to disclose some information in the records under ss. 13 (policy advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (security of a communications system), 16 (intergovernmental relations), 18 (harm to the conservation of heritage sites) and 22 (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to refuse access under ss. 14, 15(1)(l) and 16, the Ministry was required to withhold access under s. 22, and it was not necessary to decide if ss. 13(1) and 18 also applied.
F23-05 Jan 25, 2023 City of Vancouver The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to correspondence about the City’s decision to issue a formal public apology regarding the Komagata Maru incident. The City decided to release most of the information in the records, despite the objections of a third party (Third Party) whose personal information appears in the records. The Third Party requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold all of the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose that information to the applicant.
F23-04 Jan 25, 2023 British Columbia Securities Commission An applicant requested records from the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) under the Free... more
An applicant requested records from the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCSC disclosed some records in full and others in severed form, applying ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations),15(1)(d) (disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement information, 21(1) (harm to third-party business interest) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) and 15(1)(d) applied to some information and ordered BCSC to withhold this information. The adjudicator found that that ss. 21(1) and 22(1) did not apply to any of the information and ordered BCSC to disclose this information.
F23-03 Jan 20, 2023 Vancouver Island Health Authority An employee made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)... more
An employee made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). One was for a report of an investigation into a respectful workplace complaint and associated records. The other was for her personal information relating to job competitions. VIHA withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy of a third party). The adjudicator found that VIHA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to some of the information. The adjudicator ordered VIHA to disclose the rest of the information to which it applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s decision to apply s. 22(1).
F23-02 Jan 12, 2023 BC Hydro and Power Authority The applicant requested a project status report about the Site C Clean Energy Project. BC Hydro and ... more
The applicant requested a project status report about the Site C Clean Energy Project. BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) disclosed the responsive record but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in dispute but ordered BC Hydro to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
F23-01 Jan 10, 2023 BC Hydro and Power Authority An applicant submitted a request to the BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) for copies of append... more
An applicant submitted a request to the BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) for copies of appendices to a Site C Quarterly Progress Report. BC Hydro responded to the request withholding some information under s. 17(1) (disclosure harmful to a public body’s financial interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) applied to the information and confirmed the decision of BC Hydro to withhold it.
P22-08 Dec 16, 2022 Bellevue West Building Management Ltd. A resident and shareholder of a company-owned apartment building complained that the company was con... more
A resident and shareholder of a company-owned apartment building complained that the company was contravening s. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by inappropriately collecting and using her personal information that it obtained through its video surveillance system. The adjudicator concluded the company was not authorized under PIPA to collect the personal information of the complainant through its video surveillance system. The adjudicator required the company to stop collecting the personal information of the complainant through its video surveillance system.
F22-64 Dec 9, 2022 Ministry of Children and Family Development An applicant requested the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) provide access to ... more
An applicant requested the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) provide access to records about birth alerts. The Ministry refused to disclose some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and disputed the applicant’s claim that disclosure was required in the public interest under s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to refuse access under s. 14 and it was not necessary to decide if s. 13(1) also applied to the same information. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry, pursuant to s. 44(1), to provide the disputed information so the adjudicator could decide if s. 25(1)(b) applied.
F22-63 Nov 30, 2022 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) A journalist made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
A journalist made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to TransLink for access to records about Surrey light rail transit. TransLink withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) applied to a small amount of information in dispute and ordered TransLink to disclose the information it was not authorized to withhold under s. 17(1).
F22-62 Nov 24, 2022 Interior Health Authority The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Region... more
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
F22-61 Nov 22, 2022 City of New Westminster The City of New Westminster (City) made an application, under s. 43(a) of the Freedom of Information... more
The City of New Westminster (City) made an application, under s. 43(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), for authority to disregard an applicant’s access requests on the basis the requests are frivolous or vexatious. It also requested other relief regarding any future access requests made by, or on behalf of, the applicant. The adjudicator found the access requests at issue were vexatious and the City was authorized to disregard them under s. 43(a). However, the City was not authorized to disregard any future access requests made by, or on behalf of, the applicant. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant would continue to use FIPPA for an improper purpose.
F22-60 Nov 21, 2022 Provincial Health Services Authority (BC Emergency Health Services) The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS... more
The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS). BCEHS provided 6,121 pages of responsive records, but withheld three of the pages under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that BCEHS was authorized to withhold the information.
F22-59 Nov 16, 2022 City of Prince Rupert The City of Prince Rupert (City) asked the Commissioner for permission to disregard the respondent’s... more
The City of Prince Rupert (City) asked the Commissioner for permission to disregard the respondent’s access request under ss. 43(a) (frivolous or vexatious), 43(b) (record already disclosed or accessible from another source) and 43(c) (responding to the access request unreasonably interferes with the public body’s operations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City did not meet its burden of proving that ss. 43(a), (b) or (c) applies.
F22-58 Nov 15, 2022 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested information about the total legal fees incurred by the Ministry of Attorney G... more
An applicant requested information about the total legal fees incurred by the Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) in defending two specified disputes with her. The Ministry withheld the information under s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 14.
F22-57 Nov 14, 2022 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development An applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Land... more
An applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose some information on the basis of common law settlement privilege and s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to the information considered under that exception.
P22-07 Nov 9, 2022 CUPE National BC Regional Office The applicant requested his personal information from the CUPE National BC Regional Office (CUPE Nat... more
The applicant requested his personal information from the CUPE National BC Regional Office (CUPE National) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). In response, CUPE National provided some of the applicant’s personal information but withheld the rest of it under ss. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege), 23(4)(a) (disclosure reasonably expected to threaten safety or mental health of an individual) and 23(4)(c) (disclosure would reveal personal information about another individual). The adjudicator found that CUPE National was authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 23(3)(a) since solicitor-client privilege applied to that information. The adjudicator found that s. 23(4)(a) did not apply at all, but that s. 23(4)(c) applied to some of the information in dispute. The adjudicator added s. 23(4)(d) (disclosure would reveal the identity of an individual who provided personal information about another individual) to the inquiry and found that it applied to some of the information in dispute. The adjudicator found that a small amount of the applicant’s personal information could be provided to the applicant under s. 23(5).
F22-56 Nov 8, 2022 City of North Vancouver An applicant requested access to records, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy... more
An applicant requested access to records, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the City of North Vancouver (City). The City provided the applicant with access to records but withheld some parts of the records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 13(1) and found that the City was required to refuse the applicant access to some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
F22-55 Nov 8, 2022 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority An applicant requested copies of all current contracts for laundry services between K-Bro Linen Syst... more
An applicant requested copies of all current contracts for laundry services between K-Bro Linen Systems (K-Bro) and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). VCHA responded to the request by withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to the financial interests of a third party). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered VCHA to disclose the information.
F22-54 Nov 2, 2022 University of British Columbia An applicant made a request to the University of British Columbia (UBC) under the Freedom of Informa... more
An applicant made a request to the University of British Columbia (UBC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records about the 5G partnership between UBC and a third party. The third party requested a review of UBC’s decision that s. 21(1) (harm to business intertest of a third party) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not apply to withhold information in the records. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision that it was not required to refuse access to any part of the records under s. 21(1). The adjudicator ordered UBC to disclose them to the access applicant.
F22-53 Oct 31, 2022 District of North Vancouver The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPP... more
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to certain records relating to its preliminary application to subdivide a property. The District of North Vancouver (District) provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the District was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations).
F22-52 Oct 27, 2022 Provincial Health Services Authority (BC Emergency Health Services) The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS... more
The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS). BCEHS provided 6,121 pages of responsive records, but withheld information in the records under ss. 3(3)(h) (scope of FIPPA), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). BCEHS also withheld a small amount of information under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator confirmed BCEHS’s decisions with respect to ss. 3(3)(h), 13(1), 14, and (with one exception) s. 22. The adjudicator ordered BCEHS, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under settlement privilege for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.
F22-51 Oct 27, 2022 Strathcona Regional District The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Strathcona Regional District (SRD) for copies of correspondence referencing herself. The SRD withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) and 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations). The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) and 16(1)(b) applied to most of the information in dispute and ordered the SRD to disclose the information it was not authorized to withhold under ss. 12(3)(b) and 16(1)(b).
F22-50 Oct 27, 2022 College of Massage Therapists of British Columbia An individual complained the College of Massage Therapists of British Columbia (College) contravened... more
An individual complained the College of Massage Therapists of British Columbia (College) contravened the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by improperly disclosing his personal information. The individual is a registrant of the College who was investigated for his conduct towards a patient. The College argued the disclosure was authorized under various subsections of ss. 33.(1) or 33.2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the College did not contravene FIPPA since the disclosure was authorized under an enactment of British Columbia in accordance with s. 33.1(1)(c) of FIPPA. Given that finding, the adjudicator did not find it necessary to consider the College’s application of the other FIPPA provisions at issue.
F22-49 Oct 27, 2022 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) for records relating to two complaints he had made to that office. In response, the Tribunal withheld the records in their entirety under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Tribunal’s s. 14 decision.
F22-48 Oct 26, 2022 Thompson Rivers University An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for copies of email correspondence between a faculty member and a researcher living in a foreign country. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty member. The adjudicator found that TRU failed to meet its burden of establishing that the records were the research materials of its faculty member and ordered TRU to disclose them.
P22-06 Oct 13, 2022 Health Employers Association of British Columbia An applicant requested access to her personal information under the control of the Health Employers ... more
An applicant requested access to her personal information under the control of the Health Employers Association of British Columbia (the Association). The Association provided access to some information, but refused to disclose other information to the applicant under ss. 23(3)(a), 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator determined the Association was required to refuse access to a small amount of information because it did not qualify as the applicant’s personal information under PIPA. The adjudicator also found the Association was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under s. 23(3)(a) since solicitor client privilege applied and under s. 23(4)(c) and s. 23(4)(d) as the disclosure would reveal personal information about another individual or the identity of an individual providing personal information about another person. The adjudicator found, however, that the Association was not required under s. 23(4)(c) and s. 23(4)(d) to withhold the rest of the information at issue and ordered the Association to disclose this information to the applicant.
F22-47 Oct 7, 2022 Interior Health Authority A member of the Health Sciences Association (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Informat... more
A member of the Health Sciences Association (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Interior Health Authority (IHA) for a copy of a contract and related records between the IHA and service providers for the provision of services to the Kelowna Urgent and Primary Care Centre (KUPCC). IHA responded to the request by withholding information under ss. 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that neither s. 16(1) nor s. 17(1) applied and ordered IHA disclose the information at issue.
F22-46 Oct 5, 2022 Office of the Premier A journalist requested records about driving in BC with a foreign driver’s licence from China. The O... more
A journalist requested records about driving in BC with a foreign driver’s licence from China. The Office of the Premier provided records, withholding some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the Office of the Premier was authorized to refuse to disclose the disputed information under ss. 13 and 16(1)(a)(iv) of FIPPA.
F22-45 Oct 3, 2022 BC Financial Services Authority A realtor complained that the BC Financial Services Authority (Authority) disclosed his personal inf... more
A realtor complained that the BC Financial Services Authority (Authority) disclosed his personal information in a way that was not permitted by s. 33(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the Authority was authorized to disclose the personal information at issue under s. 33(2)(q) of FIPPA because the disclosure was made for the purpose of discipline of persons regulated by governing bodies of professions or occupations.
F22-44 Sep 20, 2022 City of Burnaby The applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
The applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to a list of all properties owned by the City of Burnaby (City). The City released the responsive record but withheld some information in the record under s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City was not authorized to withhold any information under s. 17(1).
P22-05 Sep 16, 2022 Duncan & Faber and Stevenson, Luchies & Legh The Complainant said that two law firms (organizations) violated his privacy rights under the Person... more
The Complainant said that two law firms (organizations) violated his privacy rights under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) in collecting, using and disclosing his personal information. The organizations argued that issue estoppel applies, barring the Complainant from proceeding with his complaints, as a provincial court judge dealt with the same issue in an earlier proceeding and dismissed the Complainant’s claims against the organizations and lawyers involved. The adjudicator found that issue estoppel applies and that the Complainant is thus barred from proceeding with his PIPA complaints.
F22-43 Sep 16, 2022 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some ... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
F22-42 Sep 12, 2022 Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction The applicant requested records related to her deceased mother’s dental care. The public body refuse... more
The applicant requested records related to her deceased mother’s dental care. The public body refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of her deceased mother in accordance with s. 5(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). The public body also refused her access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
F22-41 Sep 9, 2022 British Columbia Utilities Commission A journalist requested records about the Site C construction review. The BC Utilities Commission (BC... more
A journalist requested records about the Site C construction review. The BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) withheld some information in the records under multiple exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Subsequently, BCUC also claimed that s. 61 of the Administrative Tribunals Act applies to the information in dispute and overrides FIPPA’s application. The adjudicator found s. 61(1)(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the information in dispute from FIPPA’s application. For that reason, it was not necessary to decide if the FIPPA exceptions also applied.
F22-40 Aug 25, 2022 The Board of Education of School District 61 (Greater Victoria) An applicant requested from the Board of Education of School District 61 (SD61) copies of statistica... more
An applicant requested from the Board of Education of School District 61 (SD61) copies of statistical reports relating to the number of times students with special needs were removed from classes or excluded from school trips. SD61 released the statistical information for each school listed in the reports but withheld the names of the schools under s. 22(1). It withheld this information on the grounds that disclosure of the numerical values could identify individual students. The adjudicator found that SD61 had correctly applied s. 22(1).
F22-39 Aug 17, 2022 British Columbia Investment Management Corporation The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI) for copies of 2014-2015 BCI employee engagement and satisfaction survey reports, including results and analysis. BCI withheld the responsive records and information on the basis of common law case-by-case privilege and ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA is a complete code of exceptions to disclosure abrogating case-by-case privilege, so BCI was not entitled to rely on that privilege as an access exception. The adjudicator then determined that BCI was authorized to withhold most of the disputed information under s. 13(1), but that it was not authorized or required to withhold the balance of the information under the other exceptions BCI applied.
F22-38 Aug 17, 2022 Ministry of Health An applicant requested the Ministry of Health (Ministry) provide access to information relating to h... more
An applicant requested the Ministry of Health (Ministry) provide access to information relating to hearing panel members of an audit established under the Medicare Protection Act. In response, the Ministry refused access under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and confirmed the Ministry’s s. 22 decision and ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
P22-04 Aug 11, 2022 Richmond City Baseball Association An applicant made a request for personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act (... more
An applicant made a request for personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to the Richmond City Baseball Association (Association). The Association identified some records containing the applicant’s personal information but refused to disclose it under s. 23(4) of PIPA. The adjudicator found that some of the information was the applicant’s personal information and that s. 23(4) applied to some but not all of it.
F22-37 Aug 11, 2022 City of Vancouver The applicant, the Vancouver Dispensary Society (Society), complained about the City of Vancouver’s ... more
The applicant, the Vancouver Dispensary Society (Society), complained about the City of Vancouver’s (City) denial to waive their fee for an access request. The City estimated the fee would be $28,432.50 to process the request. The adjudicator found the Society had not established a fee waiver was warranted under s.75(5)(a) (fair to excuse payment) or s.75(5)(b) (public interest) and confirmed the fee.
F22-36 Jul 20, 2022 City of Vancouver An applicant requested a specific report and related appraisals from the City of Vancouver (City). T... more
An applicant requested a specific report and related appraisals from the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld the report under ss. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant also complained that the City did not conduct an adequate search for records as part of its duty to assist under s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to the report but that the City did not fulfil its duty to assist under s. 6(1).
F22-35 Jul 18, 2022 E-Comm Emergency Communications for British Columbia Inc. A local of a union (applicant) requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of ... more
A local of a union (applicant) requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to daily reports generated by an employee of E Comm Emergency Communications for British Columbia Inc. (E-Comm). The reports contain historical data about emergency and non-emergency call statistics and the operational performance of E Comm’s call-taking and dispatch services. E Comm refused access to the records withholding information under s. 17(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined E-Comm was not authorized to refuse access to the information at issue since its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to harm E Comm’s financial or economic interests in accordance with s. 17(1). The adjudicator ordered E Comm to disclose the withheld information to the applicant.
F22-34 Jul 14, 2022 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development The applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lan... more
The applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
F22-33 Jul 7, 2022 Vancouver Island Health Authority A third-party requested a review of the public body’s decision regarding what information in their c... more
A third-party requested a review of the public body’s decision regarding what information in their contract must not be disclosed under s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator expanded the scope of the inquiry to decide about all of the information the public body and the third party said must be withheld under s. 21(1), not just the severing in dispute between them. The adjudicator found that the public body was not required to refuse access to any part of the contract under s. 21(1) and ordered the public body to disclose it to the access applicant.
F22-32 Jun 23, 2022 Fraser Health Authority The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Frase... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to the asset purchase agreement (Agreement) by which FHA acquired the business assets of a third party. FHA decided it was required to disclose the Agreement, except for some information which FHA and the third party agreed should be withheld under s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision, arguing that the entire Agreement should be withheld under s. 21(1) (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party). The adjudicator confirmed FHA’s decision that it is not required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 21(1).
P22-03 Jun 22, 2022 Grand Forks Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Coldstream Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Two applicants requested access to their personal information under the control of their former Jeho... more
Two applicants requested access to their personal information under the control of their former Jehovah’s Witness congregations. The congregations refused to disclose the requested information. They believe the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) does not apply and PIPA is unconstitutional, specifically the provisions that give the applicants and the commissioner access to personal information and records under the control of religious organizations. The adjudicator found that PIPA applies. While the adjudicator found that the impugned measures in PIPA infringe s. 2(a) (freedom of religion), the infringement is justifiable under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The congregations did not establish that PIPA infringes s. 2(b) (freedom of expression), s. 2(d) (freedom of association) or s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) of the Charter. The adjudicator ordered the congregations, under s. 38(1)(b) of PIPA, to provide a copy of the records for the adjudicator to review and decide what access to the records, if any, the applicants should be given.
F22-31 Jun 15, 2022 Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act... more
The applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).
F22-30 Jun 8, 2022 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)... more
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to two claim files. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) disclosed most of the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and 3(5)(a) (record available for purchase by the public) of FIPPA. ICBC later abandoned reliance on s. 17(1). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1), 22(1) and 3(5)(a) apply to most of the withheld information and ordered ICBC to withhold this information. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the information to which she found ss. 13(1), 22(1) and 3(5)(a) did not apply.
F22-29 Jun 6, 2022 BC Coroners Service A journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. ... more
A journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. The BCCS initially withheld all of the records under s. 64(1) of the Coroners Act. The BCCS then disclosed the records but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and ordered the BCCS to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
F22-28 Jun 6, 2022 Sunshine Coast Regional District A property owner (complainant) submitted a request to the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) fo... more
A property owner (complainant) submitted a request to the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) for records relating to alterations to district property abutting his property. The SCRD responded with a fee estimate of $490. After the complainant paid the required deposit of $245, the SCRD issued a revised fee estimate of $2790. The complainant protested that the revised fee was not in compliance with s. 75 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the revised fee estimate was not authorized by s. 75 of FIPPA. The adjudicator reduced the fee to the amount of the original estimate and excused the complainant from paying the remaining $245. The adjudicator also ordered the SCRD to complete the processing of the request.
F22-27 Jun 2, 2022 College of Pharmacists of British Columbia The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) requested the commissioner exercise their d... more
The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) requested the commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to not conduct an inquiry regarding the College’s decision to refuse an applicant partial access to the requested record. The College argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) applied to the withheld information. The adjudicator determined that it was not plain and obvious the College was authorized to withheld the information at issue under s. 13(1). Therefore, the adjudicator dismissed the College’s s. 56 application and directed the matter to an inquiry.
F22-26 May 30, 2022 Ministry of Health An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records relating to hearing panels established under the Medicare Protection Act. In response, the Ministry withheld a 28-page PowerPoint presentation in its entirety under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s s. 14 decision.
F22-25 May 19, 2022 Vancouver Island Health Authority The applicant requested access to his own human resources file from the Vancouver Island Health Auth... more
The applicant requested access to his own human resources file from the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). VIHA responded refusing access to the records under s. 19(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) on the grounds that disclosure would cause immediate and grave harm to the applicant. VIHA subsequently disclosed some records to the applicant. The adjudicator found that s. 19(2) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered VIHA to disclose the remainder.
F22-24 May 18, 2022 British Columbia Institute of Technology The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to his employee group benefits plan. BCIT withheld information in the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party). The adjudicator confirmed BCIT’s decision under s. 14. Regarding ss. 13(1) and 21(1), the adjudicator confirmed BCIT’s decisions in part and ordered it to disclose some of the information in dispute.
F22-23 May 16, 2022 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to copies of legal invoices issued by a law firm in relation to a human rights complaint. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) withheld the records in their entirety under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that it was authorized to withhold the information at issue under s. 14.
F22-22 May 12, 2022 University of British Columbia An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) copies of records relating to h... more
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) copies of records relating to her applications to professional programs and the hiring of teachers. UBC released some of the information but withheld the rest under s. 13 (advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that UBC had correctly applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that UBC had correctly applied s. 22.
F22-21 Apr 28, 2022 Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Pr... more
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
F22-20 Apr 27, 2022 Provincial Health Services Authority An applicant requested the BC Ambulance Service dispatch, incident and after-action records relating... more
An applicant requested the BC Ambulance Service dispatch, incident and after-action records relating to two incidents at a particular Skytrain Station. The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) disclosed the records but withheld some information under s. 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety) and s. 22(1) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant raised the application of s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure) on the grounds that disclosure was in the public interest. The adjudicator found that PSHA was not required to disclose the records under s. 25(1). The adjudicator found that ss 19(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information at issue and but ordered PSHA to disclose other information.
F22-19 Apr 26, 2022 Ministry of Health The applicant complained that the Ministry of Health (Ministry) had failed to respond in time to his... more
The applicant complained that the Ministry of Health (Ministry) had failed to respond in time to his request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the Order of the Provincial Health Officer of September 10, 2021. The Ministry conceded that it had not met its duty under s. 6(1) of FIPPA to respond without delay and had not complied with its duty under s. 7 to respond within legislated time lines. The adjudicator agreed and ordered the Ministry to respond no later than April 29, 2022.
F22-18 Apr 25, 2022 British Columbia Utilities Commission The City of Richmond (City) made eight requests to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) ... more
The City of Richmond (City) made eight requests to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) for records about the Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC estimated that a $24,000 fee would be required to process the requests. The City paid the fee and then requested a fee waiver under s. 75(5)(a) (fair to excuse payment) and s. 75(5)(b) (public interest). BCUC denied the fee waiver requests. The adjudicator found the City had not established that a fee waiver was warranted and confirmed the fee.
F22-17 Apr 14, 2022 Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service Agency An applicant asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service Agency (public bodies) for re... more
An applicant asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
F22-16 Apr 8, 2022 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) received an access request from an applicant fo... more
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) received an access request from an applicant for records related to a dispute over unpaid vehicle insurance premiums. ICBC provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records, but withheld information under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ICBC had correctly applied s. 14 to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also concluded ICBC properly exercised its discretion in applying s. 14 to the records. The adjudicator determined, however, that ICBC was not authorized to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 13(1) and 14 and ordered ICBC to disclose that information to the applicant.
F22-15 Mar 31, 2022 City of Richmond The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Richmond (City) for access to records relating to delays in the construction of a recreational centre. The City withheld the records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator dealt with s. 14 in Order F22-04. In this order, the adjudicator determined that the City is authorized to withhold some of the information under ss. 13(1) and 22(1), and the City is not authorized to withhold any information under s. 17(1).
F22-14 Mar 9, 2022 British Columbia Institute of Technology The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to emails, including “the header and all metadata attached”, between BCIT and its employee group benefits provider. In response, BCIT said the requested records are not in its custody or under its control, within the meaning of ss. 3(1) (scope of FIPPA) and 4(1) (information rights). The adjudicator determined that none of the records are in BCIT’s custody. However, the adjudicator determined that some, but not all, of the records are under BCIT’s control.
F22-13 Mar 8, 2022 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
F22-12 Mar 2, 2022 Islands Trust An applicant requested records relating to a bylaw complaint against his property. The Islands Trust... more
An applicant requested records relating to a bylaw complaint against his property. The Islands Trust (Trust) disclosed records to the applicant but withheld some information under s. 15(1) (harmful to law enforcement) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the Trust had correctly applied ss. 15(1) and 22(1).
P22-02 Mar 1, 2022 Conservative Party of Canada, Green Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, New Democratic Party of Canada Three British Columbia residents asked the four respondent organizations, which are registered polit... more
Three British Columbia residents asked the four respondent organizations, which are registered political parties under the federal Canada Elections Act, for information about what personal information they possessed about them, how it was used and to whom it had been disclosed. All four organizations responded. The individuals complained to the OIPC, which opened complaint files. The organizations objected that, because they are subject to rules in the Canada Elections Act and other federal statutes relating to collection, use and disclosure of personal information, British Columbia’s Personal Information Protection Act does not apply to their personal information practices. The Personal Information Protection Act is a constitutionally valid law in respect of property and civil rights and matters of a local nature. It is not constitutionally inapplicable to the organizations because of the constitutional doctrines of paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.
P22-01 Feb 28, 2022 Weyerhaeuser Company Limited The Weyerhaeuser Company Limited (Weyerhaeuser) applied for authorization under s. 37 of the Persona... more
The Weyerhaeuser Company Limited (Weyerhaeuser) applied for authorization under s. 37 of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to disregard an outstanding request for the respondent’s personal information and any future requests. The adjudicator found that Weyerhaeuser had failed to establish that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere in its operations because of the systematic or repetitious nature of the request (s. 37(a)) or that the request was frivolous or vexatious (s. 37(b)). The adjudicator denied the request for relief.
F22-11 Feb 23, 2022 Ministry of Health The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical Services Commission meeting... more
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1) and 22(1).
F22-10 Feb 15, 2022 Ministry of Citizens' Services and Ministry of Finance An applicant made two requests for access to records under the Freedom of Information and Protection... more
An applicant made two requests for access to records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, one to the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and one to the Ministry of Finance, for records mentioning her name over a specified period of time. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure) did not require the Ministries to disclose the information in dispute. The adjudicator also found that ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a property or system) applied to the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.
F22-09 Feb 10, 2022 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested copies of records relating to a call to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD... more
The applicant requested copies of records relating to a call to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about him, including an audio recording of the call. The VPD disclosed records, including a transcript of the audio recording, but withheld some information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the VPD had correctly applied s. 22 and ordered it to withhold the information.
F22-08 Feb 10, 2022 Ministry of Attorney General The Ministry of Attorney General applied to disregard one access request and for relief from future ... more
The Ministry of Attorney General applied to disregard one access request and for relief from future access requests under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 43(a) did not apply because although the request at issue was part of a series of systematic requests, the adjudicator was not satisfied that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the Attorney General’s operations. The adjudicator also found that the request was not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b).
F22-07 Feb 4, 2022 University of British Columbia An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources rec... more
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. UBC released some of the information but withheld the rest under s. 13 (advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that UBC had correctly applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that UBC had correctly applied s. 22(1).
F22-06 Jan 18, 2022 Office of the Premier The BC Liberal Opposition Caucus (applicant) requested access under the Freedom of Information and P... more
The BC Liberal Opposition Caucus (applicant) requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to a record called “Expectations – Minister’s Office.” The Office of the Premier (OOP) disclosed the record in severed form, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the OOP had not demonstrated that the withheld information was about an identifiable individual. The adjudicator found that, as a result, the information in dispute was not personal information. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not, therefore, apply to the withheld information and ordered the OOP to disclose it to the applicant.
F22-05 Jan 17, 2022 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested the M... more
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry) provide access to a letter. The Ministry provided the applicant with partial access to the letter, but withheld information under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, the Ministry also argued the doctrine of issue estoppel applied since the letter was part of a BC Supreme Court decision that held the letter contained information protected by solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator determined the Ministry successfully invoked issue estoppel and declined to exercise her discretion not to apply issue estoppel. As a result, the adjudicator concluded the applicant was estopped from requesting a review, under FIPPA, on whether the information withheld in the letter is protected by solicitor-client privilege.
F22-04 Jan 12, 2022 City of Richmond The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Richmond (City) for access to records relating to delays in the construction of a recreational centre. The City withheld the records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized under s. 14 to withhold some, but not all, of the records on the basis that solicitor-client privilege applies. The adjudicator ordered the City, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the remaining records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the purposes of adjudicating the other exceptions.
F22-03 Jan 11, 2022 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a new... more
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
F22-02 Jan 7, 2022 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General An applicant requested copies of any complaints a named third party may have made to the Ministry of... more
An applicant requested copies of any complaints a named third party may have made to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry), Security Programs Division regarding the applicant during a three-year period. The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records, in accordance with s. 8(2). The adjudicator found that the Ministry had correctly applied s. 8(2).
F22-01 Jan 7, 2022 City of Langford An applicant requested a copy of the proposal the City of Langford (City) submitted regarding Amazon... more
An applicant requested a copy of the proposal the City of Langford (City) submitted regarding Amazon’s plan to open a second headquarters in North America. The City refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 17(1) (harm the financial interests of a public body). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to the information at issue and ordered the City to disclose the information.
F21-70 Dec 22, 2021 Ministry of Finance The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the M... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for the cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration form for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive records, but withheld other information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Ministry of Finance was required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 12(1) and that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.
F21-69 Dec 22, 2021 Ministry of Finance The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the M... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for cabinet briefing notes and candidate profile and declaration forms for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive records, but withheld other information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Ministry of Finance was required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 12(1) and that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.
F21-68 Dec 22, 2021 Ministry of Finance The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the M... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for cabinet briefing notes and candidate profile and declaration forms for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive records, but withheld other information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Ministry of Finance was required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 12(1) and that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.
F21-67 Dec 22, 2021 Ministry of Finance The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a ca... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, but withheld other information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.
F21-66 Dec 22, 2021 Ministry of Finance The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for cabi... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for cabinet briefing notes and candidate profile and declaration forms for two named individuals within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive records, but withheld other information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.
F21-65 Dec 17, 2021 City of Vancouver The applicant requested information about short-term rental accommodation and Airbnb in the City of ... more
The applicant requested information about short-term rental accommodation and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
F21-64 Dec 16, 2021 Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicant requested access to a child protection report made to the Ministry of Children and Fam... more
The applicant requested access to a child protection report made to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry withheld information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). It also withheld information under ss. 77(1) (reveal the identity of reporter) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during assessment or investigation) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (Act). The Ministry applied one or more of these exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 77(1) of the Act, but that ss. 77(1) and 77(2)(b) did not apply to other information. For that information, the adjudicator determined s. 22(1) of FIPPA did not apply and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
P21-08 Dec 14, 2021 Clearview AI, Inc. Following a joint investigation with privacy regulators in Canada, Quebec and Alberta, a Report of F... more
Following a joint investigation with privacy regulators in Canada, Quebec and Alberta, a Report of Findings (the Report) was issued regarding Clearview AI, Inc.’s (Clearview) facial recognition tool. Regarding the BC Personal Information Protection Act, the Report found Clearview contravened ss. 6-8, 11, 14, and 17 and recommended Clearview cease offering its services in Canada, cease collecting personal information in Canada and delete personal information already collected (Recommendations). Clearview refused to comply with the Recommendations by arguing it could not comply with them. The Commissioner considered and rejected Clearview’s position and issued a binding order to comply with the Recommendations.
F21-63 Dec 13, 2021 Ministry of Attorney General and the Minister Responsible for Housing, Office of the Premier An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a provincial government program that provided eligible first-time home buyers with a down payment loan. The Office of the Premier and the Ministry of Attorney General and the Minister responsible for Housing (collectively the “Public Bodies”) provided partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Public Bodies were authorized to withhold information under s. 14 and they were required to withhold only some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1). Specifically, the Public Bodies were not required to withhold information that the adjudicator determined qualified as background explanations or analysis under s. 12(2)(c).
F21-62 Dec 8, 2021 Ministry of Finance, Public Service Agency An applicant requested records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of ... more
An applicant requested records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
F21-61 Nov 30, 2021 City of Surrey The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Surrey (City) for access to a forensic audit report. The City responded by withholding the responsive records in their entirety under several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA, including ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized under s. 14 to withhold the disputed records on the basis that litigation privilege applies, but not on the basis that solicitor-client/legal advice privilege applies. Given this finding, and since the City did not provide the records to the OIPC, the adjudicator did not find it necessary to consider s. 22(1).
F21-60 Nov 22, 2021 Victoria Police Department An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal... more
An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD released some of the information but withheld the rest under s. 13 (advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
F21-59 Nov 19, 2021 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority An applicant requested the emails that a certain contracted employee of the BC Hydro and Power Autho... more
An applicant requested the emails that a certain contracted employee of the BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) sent or received over a period of three days. BC Hydro refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 15(1)(l) (harm the security of a computer system) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information at issue and ordered BC Hydro to withhold the information. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) did not apply to the records and ordered BC Hydro to disclose the remaining information.
F21-58 Nov 12, 2021 Ministry of Finance The BC Official Opposition Caucus (applicant) requested a copy of the binders used for the committee... more
The BC Official Opposition Caucus (applicant) requested a copy of the binders used for the committee stage of Bill 44-2018, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Heath Tax) Act, 2018 (Bill 44) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) disclosed some of the information but withheld other information under s. 13(1) of FIPPA (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) does not apply to other withheld information and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
F21-57 Nov 9, 2021 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry) for any and all records related to a complaint filed against a named business regarding the “BC Security License for CCTV Installation”. The Ministry provided the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some information in the records under ss. 15(1) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator decided that the Ministry is authorized to withhold most of the disputed information under s. 15(1)(d), but must disclose the other information because neither s. 15(1)(d) nor s. 22(1) apply.
F21-56 Nov 8, 2021 BC Assessment Authority An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to reviews undertaken by the BC Assessment Authority (BC Assessment) of its Vancouver Island office facilities. BC Assessment provided partial access to the records withholding information under s. 17(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined BC Assessment was not authorized to withhold this information since its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to harm BC Assessment’s financial or economic interests in accordance with s. 17(1).
F21-55 Nov 4, 2021 Ministry of Children and Family Development An individual complained that the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) used unveri... more
An individual complained that the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) used unverified information about him in contravention of s. 28 (accuracy of personal information) and s. 29 (correction of personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to make child custody decisions that affected him. The adjudicator found that the Ministry made every reasonable effort to verify the personal information that it used in accordance with s. 28. The adjudicator made no finding with respect to s. 29 owing to lack of evidence.
F21-54 Nov 2, 2021 Fraser Health Authority An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a copy of an audit conducted by the Fraser Health Authority. The audit focused on several companies that the Fraser Health Authority contracted to provide home care support services. Fraser Health Authority refused to disclose all of the information in the record under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and parts of the record under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to a public body’s financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The applicant claimed the record should be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) since the disclosure is clearly in the public interest. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to the record under s. 14 and concluded s. 25(1)(b) did not apply in the circumstances. The adjudicator did not find it necessary to also consider whether the Ministry was authorized to withhold information in the record under ss. 13(1) and 17(1).
F21-53 Nov 2, 2021 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority An applicant requested a copy of an audit report that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) commi... more
An applicant requested a copy of an audit report that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) commissioned to examine reporting and billings of contracted service providers under the home support services program. VCH withheld the record in its entirety under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of the public body) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant raised the application of s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure) on the grounds that disclosure was in the public interest. The adjudicator found that VCH was not required to disclose the audit report under s. 25. He also found that ss. 17(1) and 13(1) did not apply to the information at issue and ordered VCH to disclose it to the applicant.
P21-07 Nov 1, 2021 BC Government and Service Employees' Union The applicant requested information from the BC Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU) unde... more
The applicant requested information from the BC Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU) under PIPA. The BCGEU provided records in response, withholding a small amount of information under ss. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege) and 23(4)(c) (personal information about another individual). During the inquiry process, the BCGEU decided to release all the information it had previously withheld under s. 23(3)(a). The adjudicator confirmed the BCGEU’s decision to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
F21-52 Oct 29, 2021 City of New Westminster The New Westminster Firefighters’ Union, IAFF Local 256, made a request to the City of New Westminst... more
The New Westminster Firefighters’ Union, IAFF Local 256, made a request to the City of New Westminster (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for access to the dates and amounts on legal bills that a law firm issued to the City during a three-year period for work advising and representing the City’s Fire Department. The City refused access to the responsive records and information under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision that it is authorized under s. 14 to refuse access to the disputed records and information.
F21-51 Oct 26, 2021 City of Vancouver The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (Ci... more
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
F21-50 Oct 21, 2021 Ministry of Health The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for access to records relating to himself held by the Medical Services Plan and the Medical Services Commission. The Ministry released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records and information under several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA. The adjudicator decided that the Ministry is authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 14, some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1), and none of the information in dispute under ss. 15(1) and 17(1). The adjudicator also decided that the Ministry is required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1).
F21-49 Oct 13, 2021 British Columbia Lottery Corporation An applicant requested the names and hometowns of the winners of a Lotto 6/49 jackpot. The BC Lotter... more
An applicant requested the names and hometowns of the winners of a Lotto 6/49 jackpot. The BC Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused to disclose the responsive records under s. 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and s. 22(1) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that ss 19(1) and 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered BCLC to withhold the information
F21-48 Oct 8, 2021 City of Vancouver The applicant requested records related to St. Augustine School from the City of Vancouver (City) an... more
The applicant requested records related to St. Augustine School from the City of Vancouver (City) and a waiver of any potential fees the City might charge to respond to the request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City assessed a fee of $960 to respond to the request and declined to waive the fee. The applicant complained to the OIPC that the City should have waived the fee under s. 75(5)(b) (public interest fee waiver). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision not to grant a fee wavier under s. 75(5)(b).
F21-47 Oct 5, 2021 Ministry of Health A physician requested information relating to his billings with the Ministry of Health (Ministry). T... more
A physician requested information relating to his billings with the Ministry of Health (Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose most of the responsive record under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to all the personal information. However, the adjudicator also found that some of the information did not constitute personal information and that the Ministry must disclose it.
F21-46 Oct 4, 2021 City of Prince Rupert An applicant requested a bylaw officer’s body camera footage from the City of Prince Rupert (City). ... more
An applicant requested a bylaw officer’s body camera footage from the City of Prince Rupert (City). The City refused the applicant’s request because it claimed disclosure of the footage could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or any other person under s. 15(1)(f). The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(f) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose the footage.
F21-45 Oct 1, 2021 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Evergreen Line and the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) provided partial access to the records by withholding information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1), 14 and 22(1), but was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
F21-44 Sep 10, 2021 Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records relating to her deceased son. The Ministry responded by saying that the applicant had not met the requirements of s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation (Regulation). These two sections set out who may make an access request on behalf of a deceased individual. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that the applicant is not making the access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Regulation.
F21-43 Sep 9, 2021 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) for access to records relating to a contract for parking management services between Imperial Parking Canada Corporation (Impark) and the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). PHSA decided to disclose the records, except for some minimal information it decided it was required to withhold under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) and s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests). Impark requested a review of PHSA’s decision, arguing that more information should be withheld under s. 21. The adjudicator confirmed PHSA’s decision in part and concluded that it is required to refuse the applicant access to some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 21.
F21-42 Sep 7, 2021 Architectural Institute of British Columbia An applicant requested access to the record of members of the Architectural Institute of British Col... more
An applicant requested access to the record of members of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) who voted in its 2019 council election, together with information showing for whom the members voted. The AIBC denied access to the information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the AIBC’s decision to refuse access to the information.
F21-41 Sep 7, 2021 City of Vancouver An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information an... more
An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) related to three “rezoning enquiries” covering the period from April 2016 to January 2019. The City disclosed records, severing information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to economic interests of public body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The applicant disputed that severing and also complained that the City interpreted his request too narrowly and did not conduct an adequate search for the responsive records. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information. The adjudicator also found that s. 13(1) did not apply to other information and ordered the City to disclose it. It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1) for some information or to consider ss. 17(1) and 15(1)(l) at all. Finally, the adjudicator found that the City complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to interpret the request and conduct an adequate search.
F21-40 Sep 7, 2021 Islands Trust An applicant requested bylaw enforcement records related to his neighbour’s property on Salt Spring ... more
An applicant requested bylaw enforcement records related to his neighbour’s property on Salt Spring Island. Islands Trust disclosed some information but refused access to the rest under several Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that Islands Trust was not authorized to refuse access under ss. 15(1)(a), (c) and (l) (harm to law enforcement), but it was required to refuse access to some of the information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). Islands Trust was ordered to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
F21-39 Sep 2, 2021 Community Living British Columbia The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC... more
The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
F21-34 Aug 30, 2021 Ministry of Citizens Services and Ministry of Finance, Public Service Agency The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) t... more
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’ Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
F21-38 Aug 23, 2021 Interior Health Authority Summary: An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Ac... more
Summary: An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her son’s hospital file. The Interior Health Authority (IHA) disclosed much of the file, but withheld some information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the information related almost exclusively to third parties and confirmed that s. 22(1) applies to the information in dispute.
F21-37 Aug 20, 2021 Ministry of Finance In a court-ordered partial reconsideration of Order F19-38, the adjudicator considered further evide... more
In a court-ordered partial reconsideration of Order F19-38, the adjudicator considered further evidence provided by the Ministry of Finance to support its decision to withhold three categories of records under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined the information at issue was protected by solicitor-client privilege and the Ministry of Finance was authorized to withhold that information under s. 14.
F21-36 Aug 10, 2021 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) relating to two meetings on ... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) relating to two meetings on specific dates. The Ministry withheld three sets of presentation slides in their entirety under s. 12(1) (Cabinet and local public body confidences). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) applied to most, but not all, of the information in dispute.
F21-35 Aug 6, 2021 Ministry of Children and Family Development A wife and husband requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ... more
A wife and husband requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records containing their personal information and their son’s personal information. The Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry) disclosed some records to the applicants, but withheld some information or the entirety of other records under several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (Act). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision which concluded the applicants were not authorized to access their son’s personal information because the applicants did not establish they had the authority to act on behalf of their son in exercising his access rights under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 76 of the Act. The adjudicator also concluded the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA and also under ss. 77(1) (reveal the identity of reporter) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during assessment or investigation) of the Act. However, the adjudicator found the Ministry was not authorized to withhold information under s. 15(1)(l) (harm the security of a computer system) of FIPPA. The Ministry was required to disclose any information that it was not authorized or required to withhold.
F21-33 Jul 29, 2021 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests withi... more
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The director found that VCH had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.
F21-32 Jul 28, 2021 Community Living British Columbia The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself from Community Living Bri... more
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
F21-31 Jul 23, 2021 District of Kent The District of Kent (District) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information ... more
The District of Kent (District) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to disregard 59 outstanding access requests that the respondent made to the District. The District also sought relief relating to any future access requests made by the respondent. During the inquiry, the respondent withdrew most of her access requests. The adjudicator found that the remaining outstanding access requests were not frivolous or vexatious (s. 43(b)) and would not unreasonably interfere with the District’s operations because of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests (s. 43(a)). The adjudicator concluded that relief under s. 43 was not warranted in this case.
F21-30 Jul 23, 2021 Royal British Columbia Museum, BC Archives An applicant requested access to a record related to her maternal grandmother’s incarceration in a j... more
An applicant requested access to a record related to her maternal grandmother’s incarceration in a juvenile reformatory in the 1940s. The adjudicator confirmed the Museum’s decision that it was not authorized to disclose the record under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The adjudicator found that the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy applied, so it was not necessary to decide whether the Museum was required to refuse to disclose the record under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
F21-29 Jul 12, 2021 BC Pavilion Corporation An applicant requested BC Pavilion Corporation provide access to its stadium use agreement with the ... more
An applicant requested BC Pavilion Corporation provide access to its stadium use agreement with the Canadian Soccer Association for the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015. BC Pavilion Corporation refused to disclose parts of the record under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator ordered BC Pavilion Corporation to disclose the information to the applicant because s. 21(1) did not apply.
F21-28 Jun 30, 2021 University of British Columbia The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of British Columbia (UBC) for access to an investigation report. The report concerns allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that the applicant made against a former UBC employee. UBC decided to disclose some of the information in the report. The former UBC employee argued that the disputed information should be withheld under s. 22(1) of FIPPA because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator found the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and confirmed UBC’s decision that it is not required under s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.
P21-06 Jun 29, 2021 The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1964 (Icon 1 and 2) A resident of a strata building complained that the strata corporation was in violation of the Perso... more
A resident of a strata building complained that the strata corporation was in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by inappropriately collecting and using personal information that it obtained through its video surveillance system and its key fob system. The adjudicator concluded the strata corporation was authorized under PIPA to collect and use personal information through its video surveillance system for only some of its specified purposes and for the purposes of creating and updating a key fob inventory. The adjudicator required the strata corporation to stop collecting and using personal information for its other purposes and through its key fob system because those purposes were inappropriate in the circumstances.
F21-27 Jun 25, 2021 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia A physician requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of... more
A physician requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (the College). The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision to refuse to disclose the information under s. 26.2(1) (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act.
F21-26 Jun 23, 2021 Thompson Rivers University Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines ... more
Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access requests by a specified deadline.
P21-05 Jun 21, 2021 Occumed Consulting Inc. The applicant requested a variety of information related to herself from OccuMed Consulting Inc. (Oc... more
The applicant requested a variety of information related to herself from OccuMed Consulting Inc. (OccuMed). OccuMed provided some records and information in response, but withheld other records, claiming the withheld records were not under OccuMed’s custody and control and, even if they were, solicitor-client privilege authorized OccuMed to withhold them. The adjudicator found that the disputed records are under the control of OccuMed, but solicitor-client privilege applies. Accordingly, OccuMed is authorized to withhold the records under s. 23(3)(a) of PIPA.
F21-25 Jun 16, 2021 City of Powell River The applicant requested access to records the City obtained from its lawyer regarding the sale of la... more
The applicant requested access to records the City obtained from its lawyer regarding the sale of land. The adjudicator determined the records were legal opinions and confirmed the City’s decision that solicitor client privilege applied and the City was authorized to refuse access under s. 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator also found that the applicant failed to establish that solicitor client privilege had been waived.
F21-24 Jun 14, 2021 Thompson Rivers University Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access request within the timelines r... more
Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access request within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.
F21-23 Jun 10, 2021 Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) ... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.
F21-22 Jun 7, 2021 City of Vancouver An applicant requested a copy of the Vacancy Tax Compliance Policy Manual (manual) under the Freedom... more
An applicant requested a copy of the Vacancy Tax Compliance Policy Manual (manual) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) from the City of Vancouver (City). The City disclosed much of the manual but withheld portions under ss. 15(1)(a) (harm to law enforcement matter), 15(1)(c) (harm to investigative techniques and procedures) and 17(1) (harm to economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) applied to the information in dispute. It was not necessary to consider ss. 15(1)(a) and 17(1).
F23-56 May 27, 2021 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file under ss. 13 (advice o... more
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
F21-20 May 13, 2021 City of White Rock An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act from th... more
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act from the City of White Rock (White Rock) to an email he sent, as well as other records associated with that email. White Rock disclosed the records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to a third party’s name and email address because they were contact information. The adjudicator ordered White Rock to disclose this information to the applicant. The adjudicator also found that a reference to a group to which the third party belonged was personal information, both of the third party and another individual, and White Rock must refuse to disclose that information under s. 22(1).
F21-19 May 12, 2021 Vancouver Police Department An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)... more
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
F21-18 May 7, 2021 BC Housing Management Commission An individual and his company complained about the BC Housing Management Commission’s decision to as... more
An individual and his company complained about the BC Housing Management Commission’s decision to assess and charge a fee under the category of a “commercial applicant” and to deny a full or partial waiver of that fee. The adjudicator confirmed the BC Housing Management Commission’s decision to assess a fee for the actual costs of its allowable services because the applicants qualified as commercial applicants. However, the adjudicator concluded that it would be fair under s. 75(5)(a) to excuse the applicants from paying the estimated fee given the circumstances.
F21-17 Apr 30, 2021 BC Transit An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld s... more
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
F21-16 Apr 19, 2021 University of British Columbia The applicant requested that the University of British Columbia provide access to records related to... more
The applicant requested that the University of British Columbia provide access to records related to a specific news release. The University withheld information in the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator decided that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and ordered the University to disclose the rest to the applicant.
P21-04 Apr 15, 2021 Catholic Independent Schools of the Vancouver Archdiocese The complainant made a request under s. 23(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to t... more
The complainant made a request under s. 23(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to the Catholic Independent Schools of the Vancouver Archdiocese (organization) for access to records relating to the education of her two minor children. Under s. 32(2) of PIPA, the organization assessed a fee of $1,049.91 to provide access to approximately 3,000 pages of responsive records. The complainant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the fee. The adjudicator determined that the fee is minimal under s. 32(2) and reasonable under s. 36(2)(c).
F21-15 Apr 14, 2021 City of Vancouver An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver under the Freedom of Information and Protection... more
An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the Brenhill land swap transaction. Both the applicant and a third party requested a review of the City’s access decision. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the City’s decision to refuse access under s. 13 (advice or recommendations) but ordered the City to disclose other information that had been severed under that exception. The adjudicator also confirmed the City’s decision to refuse access under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) but found that s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) did not apply. The adjudicator rejected the applicant’s argument that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applies.
F21-14 Apr 14, 2021 The Board of Education of School District 52 (Prince Rupert) The Board of Education of School District 52 (Prince Rupert) (SD52) requested authorization under s.... more
The Board of Education of School District 52 (Prince Rupert) (SD52) requested authorization under s. 43(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard a respondent’s outstanding requests, as well as future requests, over and above one open request at a time. The adjudicator found that some outstanding requests were not requests for records under FIPPA and, thus, did not need relief under s. 43(a). The adjudicator also found that one request was not repetitious or systematic for the purposes of s. 43(a) and concluded that SD52 was not authorized to disregard that request. Finally, the adjudicator found that the remaining outstanding requests, which were requests for records under FIPPA, were repetitious and systematic and would unreasonably interfere with SD52’s operations. The adjudicator authorized SD52 to disregard these remaining outstanding requests and to disregard future requests, over and above one open request at a time, for period of two years.
F21-13 Apr 6, 2021 BC Pavilion Corporation The BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) requested that the OIPC decline to conduct an inquiry into PavCo... more
The BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) requested that the OIPC decline to conduct an inquiry into PavCo’s decision to refuse an applicant access to certain requested records. The records comprise video footage recorded at a specific time on CCTV cameras at the Vancouver Convention Centre and the Olympic Cauldron. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) applied to the requested records. Therefore, the adjudicator denied PavCo’s request. The OIPC will conduct an inquiry into this matter.
F21-12 Mar 23, 2021 Fraser Health Authority The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the F... more
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to the entire file regarding an investigation into a named individual’s care at a care centre prior to their death at a hospital. FHA decided it was required to disclose all of the responsive information, except for some information that it determined it was required to withhold under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The business entity responsible for the care centre requested a review of FHA’s decision, arguing that the information FHA decided to disclose should be withheld under s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator confirmed FHA’s decision that it is not required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 21.
F21-11 Mar 19, 2021 City of White Rock The applicant requested severance agreements between the City of White Rock (City) and certain forme... more
The applicant requested severance agreements between the City of White Rock (City) and certain former City employees. The City identified five agreements as responsive, but withheld them in their entirety on the basis of common law settlement privilege and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to withhold the records on the basis of settlement privilege. Given this, the adjudicator did not consider whether s. 22 applied.
F21-10 Mar 18, 2021 BC Ferries A complainant complained about BC Ferries’ decision to not waive a fee to provide him access to a re... more
A complainant complained about BC Ferries’ decision to not waive a fee to provide him access to a record about confidential settlement agreements. The adjudicator found the complainant had not proven he could not afford to pay the fee under s. 75(5)(a) or that the record relates to a matter of public interest under s. 75(5)(b). The adjudicator confirmed BC Ferries’ decision to not excuse the complainant from paying the fee.
F21-09 Mar 4, 2021 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (Translink) An applicant requested reports about an incident that occurred on the tracks of a Sky Train station.... more
An applicant requested reports about an incident that occurred on the tracks of a Sky Train station. The public body relied on several exceptions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to refuse access to information in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) (harm to communication system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) applied to some of the disputed information, and ordered the public body to disclose the rest. The applicant claimed all the information should be disclosed under s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure), but the adjudicator found that provision did not apply.
F21-08 Mar 1, 2021 Ministry of Health The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investiga... more
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
P21-03 Feb 26, 2021 Green Planet Wholesale A complainant alleged that the organization failed to comply with its duty under s. 28 of PIPA to as... more
A complainant alleged that the organization failed to comply with its duty under s. 28 of PIPA to assist the complainant and respond to him as accurately and completely as reasonably possible. The adjudicator found that the organization complied, for the most part, with its duty under s. 28. However, it did not comply when it provided some contradictory and erroneous information in response to a part of the access request involving employee personal information. The complainant also complained about two fees the organization assessed. The adjudicator found that one fee was moot because PIPA did not apply to that information. She ordered the other fee be revised and reduced to make it a minimal fee under s. 32(2). The complainant was given a timeline to let the adjudicator know if there is a dispute about whether the revised minimal fee should be further reduced or excused because it is not reasonable under s. 36(2)(c).
P21-02 Feb 25, 2021 The Owners, Strata Plan The complainants alleged that the council of their strata plan (organization) improperly disclosed t... more
The complainants alleged that the council of their strata plan (organization) improperly disclosed their personal information to other strata owners. The adjudicator found that the Personal Information Protection Act did not authorize the organization’s disclosure of the complainants’ personal information.
F21-07 Feb 17, 2021 All Ministries of the Government of British Columbia and Office of the Premier The complainant made access requests to all ministries of the government of British Columbia and the... more
The complainant made access requests to all ministries of the government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier. The requests were for lists of certain file and folder names on the electronic devices used by the Premier, Minister or Minister of State for each public body. In response, the public bodies stated that the requested records do not exist and they were not required to create them. The public bodies argued that they had fulfilled their duties to the applicant under s. 6(2) (duty to assist applicants) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The complainant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the public bodies’ response. The adjudicator determined that the public bodies were required under s. 6(2) to create the requested records.
F21-06 Feb 10, 2021 BC Coroners Service An applicant requested sections of autopsy reports related to four Vancouver addresses, for the peri... more
An applicant requested sections of autopsy reports related to four Vancouver addresses, for the period 2002-2018, showing if the BC Coroners Service (BCCS) conducted specified tests. The BCCS withheld the 18 reports in question under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the reports do not contain the requested information and that they are therefore not responsive to the request. There was no need to conduct the s. 22(1) analysis or issue an order.
P21-01 Feb 4, 2021 Doctor J.B. A father requested his daughter’s psychological therapy session information from a psychologist purs... more
A father requested his daughter’s psychological therapy session information from a psychologist pursuant to s. 2(2)(a) of the Personal Information Protection Act Regulations and s. 23(1)(a) of the Personal Information Protection Act. The psychologist refused to provide access, determining that the daughter was a mature minor, capable of exercising her own rights under PIPA. The adjudicator confirmed the psychologist’s decision to withhold the information in dispute from the father.
F21-05 Feb 1, 2021 British Columbia Assessment Authority The British Columbia Assessment Authority (BC Assessment) applied for an order that the Commissioner... more
The British Columbia Assessment Authority (BC Assessment) applied for an order that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to decline to conduct an inquiry in this matter. BC Assessment argued that an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that the records requested by the access applicant are available for purchase by the public and are, therefore, outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator decided that the matter will not proceed to an inquiry because it is plain and obvious that s. 3(1)(j) applies to the requested record.
F21-04 Jan 28, 2021 Ministry of Health and Medical Services Commission The Ministry of Health and the Medical Services Commission jointly applied for authorization to disr... more
The Ministry of Health and the Medical Services Commission jointly applied for authorization to disregard the respondent’s outstanding access requests and certain future access requests under s. 43(a) and (b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the outstanding requests were repetitious and systematic and responding to them would unreasonably interfere with the public bodies’ operations under s. 43(a). The public bodies were authorized to disregard the outstanding requests and all but one of the respondent’s future access requests at a time for two years from the date of the authorization.
F21-03 Jan 26, 2021 Translink A journalist requested access to the emails of TransLink’s interim CEO for a specified five-day peri... more
A journalist requested access to the emails of TransLink’s interim CEO for a specified five-day period in August 2015. TransLink disclosed most of the information, withholding small amounts of information, such as email addresses and a street address. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to most of the information in dispute, as it was “contact information”, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to the interim CEO’s home telephone number and a small amount of information about a consultant’s employment history, and ordered TransLink to withhold this information.
F21-02 Jan 13, 2021 City of Nanaimo The City of Nanaimo (City) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and P... more
The City of Nanaimo (City) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard several outstanding access requests made by the respondent as well as certain future access requests. The adjudicator found that the City had not established that responding to the requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations because of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests (s. 43(a)) or that the requests were frivolous or vexatious (s. 43(b)). Accordingly, the adjudicator concluded that the City was not entitled to relief under s. 43.
F21-01 Jan 4, 2021 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant requested the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access, under th... more
An applicant requested the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about an ICBC telephone line used to support law enforcement agencies. ICBC withheld information under s. 15(1)(l) claiming the disclosure of the withheld information could reasonably be expected to harm the security of its communications system. The adjudicator determined that ICBC did not prove s. 15(1)(l) applied to the information at issue and required ICBC to disclose that information to the applicant.
F20-57 Dec 17, 2020 Ministry of Health Three Indigenous governments had asked the Ministry and several other public bodies to disclose cert... more
Three Indigenous governments had asked the Ministry and several other public bodies to disclose certain information, including personal information, related to COVID-19 and its transmission in their communities. Having had no success, they complained that the Ministry had failed to comply with its duty under section 25(1)(a) of FIPPA to disclose information specified in their complaint. The Commissioner rejected the Ministry’s arguments that, during an emergency, the Public Health Act overrides the Ministry’s duty to comply with the disclosure duty under section 25(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, although the Commissioner held that COVID-19 creates a risk of significant harm to the public and to the complainants’ communities, section 25(1)(a) does not in the circumstances require the Ministry to disclose the information that the complainants argue must be disclosed. He concluded that sufficient information is already available to the complainants and to the public to enable the public, and the complainant governments, to take steps to avoid or mitigate risks connected with COVID-19.
F20-56 Dec 15, 2020 Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of BC An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal in... more
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
F20-55 Dec 8, 2020 British Columbia Institute of Technology The applicant made a request to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to pa... more
The applicant made a request to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to part of Manulife Financial Corporation’s response to a request for proposals issued by BCIT on behalf of a consortium of post-secondary institutions. BCIT disclosed the responsive record with some information withheld under s. 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that BCIT was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 21(1). The adjudicator also decided that BCIT was not authorized to withhold a small amount of information on the basis that it was “not responsive” to the applicant’s access request.
F20-54 Dec 3, 2020 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority The applicant requested access to the names and job titles of personnel involved with the Site C Cle... more
The applicant requested access to the names and job titles of personnel involved with the Site C Clean Energy Project. The public body refused access to approximately 200 names on a list of individuals under ss. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the public body was authorized to refuse access to all but four names under s. 19(1)(a) but not under s. 22 because s. 22(4)(e) applied. The public body was required to disclose the four names to the applicant.
F20-53 Nov 18, 2020 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant requested her own personal information in the custody or under the control of the Law ... more
The applicant requested her own personal information in the custody or under the control of the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC). LSBC refused to disclose some information because it was not her personal information and/or ss. 13, 14, 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 88(2) of the Legal Professions Act applied. The adjudicator found that most of the information in dispute was not the applicant’s personal information and LSBC was authorized to refuse to disclose it on that basis because it was not the information she requested. However, the adjudicator also found that the disputed information included a few instances of the applicant’s name, that ss.13, 14, 22 and 88(2) did not apply in those instances and LSBC was required to disclose those instances to the applicant.
F20-52 Nov 16, 2020 City of Vancouver An applicant requested access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (C... more
An applicant requested access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (City) and three other individuals. The City disclosed 31 pages of emails, withholding some information under ss. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose this information. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered the City to disclose the information to which she found s. 22(1) does not apply. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) requires disclosure of the withheld information but the adjudicator found that it does not.
F20-51 Nov 16, 2020 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (Translink) An applicant requested reports about a fatality that occurred on the tracks of a SkyTrain station. T... more
An applicant requested reports about a fatality that occurred on the tracks of a SkyTrain station. The public body refused access to some information in the records under s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant claimed the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply and s. 22 applied to some of the disputed information. The public body was ordered to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
F20-50 Nov 13, 2020 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Two applicants made separate requests to the Ministry for access to information relating to human re... more
Two applicants made separate requests to the Ministry for access to information relating to human remains discovered in Lheidli T’enneh Memorial Park in Prince George. The Ministry refused to disclose the responsive information in its entirety under ss. 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) and 18 (disclosure harmful to the conservation of heritage sites, etc.) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), and s. 3(3) of the Heritage Conservation Act. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 16(1)(a)(iii) of FIPPA and that it was not necessary to consider the other provisions relied upon by the Ministry.
F20-49 Nov 13, 2020 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (Translink) An applicant requested TransLink provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of ... more
An applicant requested TransLink provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about a security incident aboard one of TransLink’s Seabus ferries. TransLink withheld information under s.22(1) claiming the disclosure of the withheld information would result in an unreasonable invasion of several third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator determined that s. 22(1) applied to most of the information at issue and confirmed TransLink’s decision to withhold that information. However, the adjudicator found that TransLink was not required to withhold a small amount of information under s. 22(1) since the adjudicator was satisfied that disclosing this information would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.
F20-48 Nov 6, 2020 Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Environmental Assessment Office, Ministry Of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, Office of the Premier An applicant made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identifi... more
An applicant made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identified mining project. The public bodies withheld information in the records under a number of exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the public bodies applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the public bodies were authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1)(cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). However, the adjudicator found that some of the withheld information did not fall within the claimed exceptions, and ordered the public bodies to disclose that information to the applicant.
F20-47 Oct 29, 2020 British Columbia Housing Management Commission The applicant requested information related to the Brenhill land swap from BC Housing. BC Housing pr... more
The applicant requested information related to the Brenhill land swap from BC Housing. BC Housing provided responsive records with some information withheld under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party privacy). A third party disputed BC Housing’s decision about s. 21, asserting that BC Housing must withhold more information under it. The applicant disputed BC Housing’s decision regarding all the exceptions applied and argued that BC Housing should release all the information under s. 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that ss. 13, 14 and 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. However, the adjudicator was not satisfied that ss. 17, 21 or 25 applied to any of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered BC Housing to disclose the information that she found no FIPPA exceptions applied to.
F20-46 Oct 20, 2020 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested copies of contracts between the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) and ... more
The applicant requested copies of contracts between the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) and Sierra Group Inc. (Sierra). The Ministry decided to disclose the records to the applicant. Sierra disputed that decision and asserted that some information must be withheld under ss. 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that that ss. 21 and 22 did not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
F20-45 Oct 7, 2020 British Columbia Lottery Corporation The applicant made three requests to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) for access to r... more
The applicant made three requests to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) for access to records relating to named individuals allegedly involved in gaming, organized crime or gaming regulation in BC. BCLC refused to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, citing s. 8(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator concluded that BCLC is authorized under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of some, but not all, of the requested records.
F20-44 Oct 5, 2020 Workers' Compensation Board The applicant made a request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) for access to records r... more
The applicant made a request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) for access to records relating to two of his worker’s compensation claims. WorkSafeBC refused to disclose the disputed information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that some, but not all, of the withheld information was advice or recommendations under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2) did not apply to the advice or recommendations and, therefore, WorkSafeBC properly withheld that information under s. 13(1).
F20-43 Oct 2, 2020 British Columbia Institute of Technology The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access t... more
The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to group benefit plans provided by BCIT to its employees and administered by a third-party company. BCIT determined that the records were not in its custody or under its control and, therefore, not within the applicant’s access rights under ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCIT also argued that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(k). The adjudicator found that the records were not in BCIT’s custody or under its control and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 3(1)(k).
F20-42 Oct 1, 2020 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested access to all records related to the province’s policies and procedures regar... more
An applicant requested access to all records related to the province’s policies and procedures regarding solicitor client privilege. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) refused to disclose the information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant claimed that the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (public interest override). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply and confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access under s. 14.
P20-06 Sep 30, 2020 West Coast Realty Ltd. doing business as Sutton Group - West Coast Realty The applicant made a request to West Coast Realty Ltd., doing business as Sutton Group West Coast Re... more
The applicant made a request to West Coast Realty Ltd., doing business as Sutton Group West Coast Realty (Sutton), for access to part of an email chain. Sutton refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that it is not the applicant’s personal information as required by s. 23(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Sutton also says that the information is exempt from disclosure under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of PIPA. The adjudicator determined that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under s. 23(4)(d) and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 23(4)(c).
F20-41 Sep 23, 2020 British Columbia Housing Management Commission Two applicants made requests to the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC) under the... more
Two applicants made requests to the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for the contract for the sale of the Little Mountain social housing site to Holborn Properties Limited. BCHMC disclosed the responsive records in severed form, withholding some of the information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered BCHMC to disclose the information in dispute to the applicants. One applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) required disclosure of the information in dispute. The adjudicator decided it was not necessary to consider s. 25(1)(b), in light of her decision under s. 21(1).
F20-40 Sep 22, 2020 Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) The applicant requested information related to a workplace investigation from the Vancouver School B... more
The applicant requested information related to a workplace investigation from the Vancouver School Board. The School Board provided some information but withheld the rest under both ss. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 19(1)(a) authorized the School Board to withhold all the information in dispute, so she did not need to decide if s. 22 also applied.
F20-39 Sep 8, 2020 Workers' Compensation Board The Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) requested authorization under ss. 43(a) and/or 43(b) to... more
The Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) requested authorization under ss. 43(a) and/or 43(b) to disregard the respondent’s outstanding access and correction requests because of their repetitive, systematic, frivolous and vexatious nature. WorkSafeBC also requested authorization to disregard future requests from the respondent. The adjudicator found the outstanding requests repetitive and systematic under s. 43(a), so she authorized WorkSafeBC to disregard them. The adjudicator also provided WorkSafeBC with some relief respecting future requests from the respondent.
F20-38 Aug 26, 2020 Vancouver Island University The applicant requested records about her and her employment with Vancouver Island University. The U... more
The applicant requested records about her and her employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s ss. 14 and 17 decisions. She did not need to consider s. 21 because s. 17 applied to the same information. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 13 decision, in part, but found that s. 22 did not apply. The University was ordered to disclose the information that the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
F20-37 Aug 26, 2020 Vancouver Island University The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The Un... more
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
F20-36 Aug 25, 2020 BC Lottery Corporation The applicant made a request to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) for copies of the qu... more
The applicant made a request to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) for copies of the quarterly reports to the Minister of Finance on implementation of BC’s anti-money laundering strategy. The public body disclosed information in some of the responsive records but withheld other parts under ss. 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), and 22 (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that ss. 16 and 17 did not apply to the withheld information, and that s. 22 only applied to a small portion of the withheld information. BCLC was ordered to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.
F20-35 Aug 5, 2020 BC Egg Marketing Board The BC Egg Marketing Board (Board) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Informati... more
The BC Egg Marketing Board (Board) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard four access requests made by the respondent, as well as any future related request. The Board argued that the four requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations because of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests (s. 43(a)). The Board also argued that the requests were frivolous or vexatious (s. 43(b)). The adjudicator determined that the Board was not authorized to disregard the four requests, or any future related request, under s. 43(a) or s. 43(b).
F20-34 Aug 5, 2020 District of Summerland Three applicants made a total of five requests to the District of Summerland (the District) for acce... more
Three applicants made a total of five requests to the District of Summerland (the District) for access to a variety of records. The applicants claimed the District did not respond to their access requests without delay as required under ss. 6 and 7 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the District’s alleged failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times. The adjudicator determined the District did not perform its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay, in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The District was ordered to provide a response to the applicants’ five access requests by certain set dates.
F20-33 Jul 31, 2020 Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) The Vancouver School Board requested authorization under s. 43(b) to disregard four access requests ... more
The Vancouver School Board requested authorization under s. 43(b) to disregard four access requests made by the respondent because they were frivolous and vexatious. The adjudicator declined to provide the requested authorization for the requests, finding them neither frivolous nor vexatious.
F20-32 Jul 22, 2020 Vancouver Coastal Health An applicant requested access to records involving a certain Vancouver Coastal Health employee. Vanc... more
An applicant requested access to records involving a certain Vancouver Coastal Health employee. Vancouver Coastal Health withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant only challenged Vancouver Coastal Health’s decision to withhold information under s. 13(1). The adjudicator determined Vancouver Coastal Health was authorized to withhold some information under s. 13(1), but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since s. 13(1) did not apply.
F20-31 Jul 13, 2020 Town of Gibsons The applicant made a request to the Town of Gibsons (Town) for access to records relating to the Tow... more
The applicant made a request to the Town of Gibsons (Town) for access to records relating to the Town’s decision to issue development permits to a company. The Town refused to disclose the records and information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most, but not all, of the disputed information. The adjudicator also found that the Town was not authorized to refuse to disclose some of the disputed information because it is information similar to an environmental impact statement under s. 13(2)(f).
F20-30 Jun 25, 2020 City of Kelowna The applicant requested legal invoices paid by the City of Kelowna in respect of a specific file. Ke... more
The applicant requested legal invoices paid by the City of Kelowna in respect of a specific file. Kelowna refused to provide the requested information citing s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied and confirmed Kelowna’s decision to withhold the requested information.
F20-29 Jun 22, 2020 College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons o... more
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
F20-28 Jun 19, 2020 Legal Services Society The applicant made a request to the Legal Services Society (LSS) for information about the legal aid... more
The applicant made a request to the Legal Services Society (LSS) for information about the legal aid billings made by a particular lawyer during a specified period. The LSS refused to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant argued s. 25(1)(b) (disclosure in public interest) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply and that the LSS was required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
P20-05 Jun 18, 2020 Surrey Creep Catcher Organization) posted videos of their encounters on the internet, without their consent, and requeste... more
Organization) posted videos of their encounters on the internet, without their consent, and requested that the Organization take down the videos. The Organization declined to do so or to destroy the videos containing the complainants’ personal information. The adjudicator found that the Organization was not authorized to collect and disclose the Complainants’ personal information and ordered it both to remove the videos from the internet and to destroy the Complainants’ personal information.
F20-27 Jun 17, 2020 City of Vancouver The applicant requested records relating to the Brenhill Land Swap from the City of Vancouver (City)... more
The applicant requested records relating to the Brenhill Land Swap from the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld some of the information from the responsive records, citing ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information in dispute under s. 14 and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.
F20-26 Jun 16, 2020 Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) In Order F20-18, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) to produce ... more
In Order F20-18, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) to produce 20 pages of records to the OIPC so that she could make a decision respecting the public body’s application of s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) to those 20 pages.The public body complied, producing the records for the adjudicator’s review. The public body also reconsidered its application of s. 22 to 18 pages of the records and decided to disclose those pages to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 22 did not require the public body to withhold those 18 pages and found that s. 22 applied to the information withheld under that section in the remaining two pages.
F20-25 Jun 12, 2020 Ministry of Health The Ministry requested that the adjudicator reconsider her decision about one record that was the su... more
The Ministry requested that the adjudicator reconsider her decision about one record that was the subject of Order F20-09. The adjudicator found that her original order did not reflect her manifest intention. As a result, she issued a new order regarding the disputed record.
F20-24 Jun 8, 2020 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICB... more
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
F20-23 Jun 2, 2020 British Columbia Pavilion Corporation A journalist requested a copy of proposals submitted to the British Columbia Pavilion Corporation (P... more
A journalist requested a copy of proposals submitted to the British Columbia Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) in 2015 to replace artificial turf at BC Place. PavCo ultimately disclosed most of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party financial interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) in the proposal of the successful proponent, Centaur Products Inc. (Centaur). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered PavCo to disclose all of the information in dispute to the journalist.
F20-22 Jun 2, 2020 Fraser Health Authority The applicant made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to ... more
The applicant made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to an investigation the FHA conducted under the Adult Guardianship Act. The FHA withheld the information in dispute under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the FHA was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 14 and that the FHA was required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
F20-21 May 25, 2020 City of White Rock The applicant made a request to the City of White Rock for access to records relating to negotiation... more
The applicant made a request to the City of White Rock for access to records relating to negotiations between the City and EPCOR Utilities Inc. The City withheld the disputed records and information under common law settlement privilege and s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests), and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 14 and 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. The adjudicator confirmed in part the City’s decision regarding settlement privilege. Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was not required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 21.
P20-04 May 19, 2020 Teck Coal Limited Three individuals complained to the OIPC that Teck is collecting and using employee personal informa... more
Three individuals complained to the OIPC that Teck is collecting and using employee personal information from certain video cameras in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator found that Teck is authorized to collect and use some but not all of the employee personal information in dispute. The adjudicator also found that Teck’s signage is not in compliance with PIPA.
F20-20 May 14, 2020 Ministry of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources The applicant made a request to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for records re... more
The applicant made a request to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for records relating to the Site C Clean Energy Project. The Ministry disclosed information in some of the responsive records but withheld other parts under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a property or system), 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information in dispute under s. 15(1)(l), and was required or authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information in dispute under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 16(1) and 17(1). The adjudicator concluded that the Ministry was not required to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22(1).
F20-19 May 4, 2020 Law Society of British Columbia The applicants made a joint request for access to records relating to a complaint they made to the L... more
The applicants made a joint request for access to records relating to a complaint they made to the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) about a lawyer. The Law Society withheld the disputed information under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 88(2) (privileged and confidential information) of the Legal Profession Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Law Society’s decision under s. 14 of FIPPA and s. 88(2) of the LPA regarding solicitor-client privilege and concluded that it was unnecessary to consider s. 22.
P20-03 May 1, 2020 Mary-Helen Wright Law Corporation carrying on business as Pacific Law Group and Boughton Law Corporation A party in proceedings before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal complained that the opposin... more
A party in proceedings before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal complained that the opposing party’s lawyer disclosed her personal information contrary to s. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act. The adjudicator found that the Act had not been contravened.
F20-18 Apr 29, 2020 Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) The applicant asked the BC Public Service Agency (PSA) for records related to a workplace investigat... more
The applicant asked the BC Public Service Agency (PSA) for records related to a workplace investigation that occurred in the aftermath of the well-known Ministry of Health firings. The PSA withheld all the responsive records under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all but three of the records, two of which the PSA also withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the PSA to disclose the record not covered by s. 14 to the applicant. The adjudicator also ordered the PSA to produce the remaining two records to the commissioner under s. 44 and will remain seized of the matter until she makes a final decision respecting s. 22.
F20-17 Apr 29, 2020 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia A physician requested access to records related to a complaint and two assessments of his medical pr... more
A physician requested access to records related to a complaint and two assessments of his medical practice. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision to refuse the applicant access to records under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The College also refused to disclose records under s. 26.2(1) (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act. The adjudicator found that s. 26.2(1)(a) only applied to some parts of the records and ordered the College to disclose the rest to the applicant. The adjudicator also determined there was some third party personal information the College was required to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
F20-16 Apr 23, 2020 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested access to records held by the Ministry of Attorney General relating to an id... more
The applicant requested access to records held by the Ministry of Attorney General relating to an identified land deal. The Ministry denied access to the responsive emails, email strings and their attachments on the basis that s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all of the information in dispute, as the emails and their attachments all related to the seeking, formulating, or giving of legal advice.
F20-15 Apr 23, 2020 Ministry of Children and Family Development and Ministry of Citizens' Services The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (MCS) ... more
The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (MCS) requested authorization to disregard the respondent’s 82 outstanding requests on the grounds that they are repetitive and systematic and would unreasonably interfere with their operations and/or that they are frivolous and vexatious. The adjudicator found that the outstanding requests are vexatious for the purposes of s. 43(b) and authorized MCFD and MCS to disregard them and any future requests for two years, apart from one open request at a time.
F20-14 Apr 22, 2020 City of Chilliwack Two applicants requested a review of the City of Chilliwack’s decision to deny them a full or partia... more
Two applicants requested a review of the City of Chilliwack’s decision to deny them a full or partial fee waiver for the processing of their access request. The applicants argued they were entitled to a fee waiver under s. 75(5)(a) because they could not afford to pay the estimated fee or because it was fair to excuse them from paying the fee under the circumstances. Ultimately, the adjudicator confirmed the City of Chilliwack’s decision not to grant a full or partial fee waiver to the applicants under s. 75(5)(a).
F20-13 Apr 22, 2020 Vancouver Coastal Health An applicant requested access to records in her human resources file from Vancouver Coastal Health, ... more
An applicant requested access to records in her human resources file from Vancouver Coastal Health, including records related to her work performance. Vancouver Coastal Health provided some records, but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Vancouver Coastal Health also argued that certain records were outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(d) or were not responsive to the applicant’s access request. The adjudicator determined that Vancouver Coastal Health was required to withhold some information under s. 22(1), but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13 and 22(1) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply to certain records; however, the adjudicator determined that those records were not responsive to the applicant’s access request. As a result, the adjudicator concluded Vancouver Coastal Health had performed its duty under s. 6(1) to respond to the access request openly, accurately and completely.
F20-12 Apr 20, 2020 Medical Services Commission A physician requested copies of all information the Medical Services Commission (MSC) held about him... more
A physician requested copies of all information the Medical Services Commission (MSC) held about him. The MSC disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The physician asked that an inquiry beheld to determine if s. 22(1) applies to the patients’ names and Personal Health Numbers (PHNs) in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to patients’ names and PHNs.
F20-11 Apr 20, 2020 Elections BC Elections BC requested that the OIPC decline to conduct an inquiry into Elections BC’s decision to r... more
Elections BC requested that the OIPC decline to conduct an inquiry into Elections BC’s decision to refuse an applicant access to certain requested records. The records relate to an investigation conducted by Elections BC under the Election Act. The adjudicator found it plain and obvious that the requested records fell outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c) because Elections BC had created or received them as part of its statutorily mandated functions. Therefore, under s. 56, the adjudicator decided that the OIPC will not conduct an inquiry into this matter.
P20-02 Apr 17, 2020 Courtenay-Alberni Riding Association of the New Democratic Party of Canada In this companion order to Order P19-02, the Commissioner finds that the organization failed to comp... more
In this companion order to Order P19-02, the Commissioner finds that the organization failed to comply with PIPA when it collected and used the complainants’ personal information without their consent. He found, however, that the organization complied with its duty under s. 23(1) to respond to the complainants’ questions about how the organization had collected, used and disclosed their personal information. In conclusion, the Commissioner determined that it was not necessary to order the organization to stop collecting or using the complainants’ personal information. However, he ordered the organization to destroy any of the complainants’ personal information in its control and to provide an affidavit confirming the destruction was complete.
F20-10 Apr 17, 2020 City of Richmond The City of Richmond requested that the commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56 of the Act ... more
The City of Richmond requested that the commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56 of the Act and choose not to conduct an inquiry into the City’s decision to refuse a journalist access to a report on policing. The adjudicator dismissed the application after finding that it was not plain and obvious that s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to the report.
F20-09 Mar 13, 2020 Ministry of Health The applicant pharmacy requested information from the Ministry of Health relating to the investigati... more
The applicant pharmacy requested information from the Ministry of Health relating to the investigation of the pharmacy and the termination of its licence, including communications with the College of Pharmacists. The Ministry provided over 3500 pages of records but withheld information in those records under a number of exceptions in FIPPA. The adjudicator found that only ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 13 (advice and recommendations) were at issue in the inquiry. The adjudicator also found that the Ministry could withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 14 and that s. 13 did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide the applicant with access to the information to which ss. 13 and 14 did not apply.
F20-08 Feb 25, 2020 Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) and Office of the Premier The applicant requested access to records relating to investigations into the applicant’s conduct wh... more
The applicant requested access to records relating to investigations into the applicant’s conduct while employed by the provincial government. The public bodies refused to disclose the responsive records and information in dispute under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that ss. 13 and 14 applied to the information withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) applied to teleconference participant ID numbers, but not to physical meeting locations. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 applied to most of the personal information withheld under that section, but not to a small amount of third-party personal information related to scheduling.
P20-01 Feb 24, 2020 The Canada Life Assurance Company An applicant requested access to his personal information from The Canada Life Assurance Company (Ca... more
An applicant requested access to his personal information from The Canada Life Assurance Company (Canada Life). Canada Life refused to disclose some information to the applicant under ss. 23(3)(a), 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act. The adjudicator determined Canada Life was authorized or required to withhold some information under s. 23(3)(a) since solicitor client privilege applied and under s. 23(4)(c) and s. 23(4)(d) since the disclosure would reveal personal information about another individual or the identity of an individual providing personal information about another person. The adjudicator found Canada Life was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information from the applicant.
F20-07 Feb 14, 2020 BC Assessment Authority An applicant requested Property Record Cards for 10 properties, including his own, from BC Assessmen... more
An applicant requested Property Record Cards for 10 properties, including his own, from BC Assessment Authority (BCA). BCA withheld all of the records except those related to the applicant’s own property. BCA said it was withholding the records related to the nine other properties under ss. 3(1)(j) (records available for purchase), 21(2) (information gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), s. 16(3) of the Assessment Act and because some of the information was publicly available without a charge. The adjudicator found that BCA was authorized to withhold some information under s. 21(2). The adjudicator also found that BCA had no authority to withhold the rest of the information on the grounds that s. 3(1)(j) applied or that it was publicly available without a charge and ordered BCA to disclose this information to the applicant. It was not necessary to consider s. 22(1) of FIPPA or s. 16(3) of the Assessment Act.
F20-06 Feb 13, 2020 University of Victoria A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications ... more
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
F20-04 Feb 3, 2020 City of Vancouver The applicant requested four records from the City of Vancouver (City) relating to the Brenhill Land... more
The applicant requested four records from the City of Vancouver (City) relating to the Brenhill Land Swap. The City said it had custody and control of one of the records but withheld it under s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The City said that it did not have custody or control of the remaining records. The adjudicator found that s. 21 did not apply and that the City had custody and control of one of the remaining records but not the other two.
F20-03 Feb 3, 2020 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority In a court ordered reconsideration of Order F18-51, the adjudicator found that s. 19(1)(a) (threat t... more
In a court ordered reconsideration of Order F18-51, the adjudicator found that s. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) applied to the names of certain British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) employees who worked on the Site C project. Therefore, the adjudicator concluded that BC Hydro was authorized to withhold this information.
Feb 3, 2020 City of Vancouver A society complained to the OIPC that the City of Vancouver (City) did not meet its duty to assist u... more
A society complained to the OIPC that the City of Vancouver (City) did not meet its duty to assist under s. 6(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the City did not respond openly, accurately and completely to the access request and that the City did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the City to conduct another search. In addition, the adjudicator found that certain records were responsive records in the custody and control of the City under s. 4 of FIPPA.
F20-02 Jan 20, 2020 Interior Health Authority The applicant requested a specific contract between the Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) ... more
The applicant requested a specific contract between the Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) and a third party for the provision of laundry services. Interior Health responded by providing the contract with some information withheld under ss. 15(1)(l) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third party business interests) and 22(1) (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant asked the OIPC to review Interior Health’s decision respecting s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that Interior Health was not required to withhold the information under s. 21(1).
F20-01 Jan 7, 2020 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant made two access requests related to a private organization. The applicant made the fir... more
The applicant made two access requests related to a private organization. The applicant made the first of these access requests to both the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Justice, and made the second to the Ministry of Justice alone. The Ministry of Justice (now Ministry of Attorney General) responded to both access requests, withholding the vast majority of the information in the records under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party privacy) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, the applicant clarified that he did not want any third party personal information in the records. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to much of the information at issue and ordered the Ministry of Attorney General to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
F19-50 Dec 23, 2019 Ministry of Health An applicant requested access to records related to meetings between the Ministry of Health and repr... more
An applicant requested access to records related to meetings between the Ministry of Health and representatives of pharmaceutical companies. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body or government) applied to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to other information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
F19-49 Dec 19, 2019 Metro Vancouver Regional District The applicant requested that Metro Vancouver provide records and information related to communicatio... more
The applicant requested that Metro Vancouver provide records and information related to communications between Metro Vancouver and its external lawyers. Metro Vancouver disclosed some information but withheld the majority of the responsive records in their entirety under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant asserted that s. 25 (public interest disclosure) applied. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to the withheld information and that s. 25 did not.
F19-48 Dec 19, 2019 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development The applicant requested access to records related to the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of ... more
The applicant requested access to records related to the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed some information to the applicant, but it withheld information relying on several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy), but ordered the Ministry to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. Lastly, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because it provided no evidence that it had properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1).
F19-47 Dec 18, 2019 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested access to a record that contains the total legal costs incurred by the Provi... more
The applicant requested access to a record that contains the total legal costs incurred by the Province in ongoing litigation to which the applicant is a party. The Ministry refused to disclose the information on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision.
F19-46 Dec 16, 2019 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) re... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) related to a highway improvement project. The Ministry extended the time for responding to the applicant’s request by 20 days, citing its authority to do so under s. 10 of FIPPA. The applicant made a complaint about this time extension to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The adjudicator decided that s. 10(1)(c) authorized the Ministry to extend the time limit for responding to the applicant’s access request by 20 days in the circumstances. Accordingly, the adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s time limit extension.
F19-45 Dec 16, 2019 Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Attorney General The applicants made joint requests to the Ministries for records relating to indemnity agreements be... more
The applicants made joint requests to the Ministries for records relating to indemnity agreements between them and the Province, including records relating to the Province’s decisions to issue the applicants T4A tax slips. The Ministries withheld some of the records on the basis that they were outside the scope of the Act under s. 3(1)(c), and withheld the other records on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under s. 14. The adjudicator found that some of the records were outside the scope of the Act under s. 3(1)(c) and confirmed the Ministries’ decisions under s. 14.
F19-44 Dec 10, 2019 BC Transit BC Transit applied for authorization to disregard one outstanding access request and certain future ... more
BC Transit applied for authorization to disregard one outstanding access request and certain future access requests under s. 43(a) and (b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized BC Transit to disregard the outstanding request because it was vexatious under s. 43(b) and to disregard any future request the respondent may make regarding the same topic for a period of two years or the date his law suit concludes, whichever comes first.
F19-43 Dec 9, 2019 Resort Municipality of Whistler The applicant requested access to building permits, inspection reports and other associated records ... more
The applicant requested access to building permits, inspection reports and other associated records related to her strata development in the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW). The RMOW disclosed hundreds of pages of responsive records, withholding a small amount of information under s. 21(2) (information related to a tax) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(2) applied to one page. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the remaining information and ordered the RMOW to withhold it. The applicant argued that s. 25(1) applied to the information in dispute but the adjudicator found it did not.
F19-42 Nov 14, 2019 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction p... more
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
F19-41 Nov 13, 2019 University of Victoria A professor requested information about two University investigations into his work conduct. The Uni... more
A professor requested information about two University investigations into his work conduct. The University gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s decision regarding s. 14. The s. 13(1) and s. 22(1) decisions were confirmed in part. The University was ordered to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
F19-40 Nov 8, 2019 Ministry of Health An applicant requested records related to a review by Deloitte LLP (Deloitte) of the Ministry of Hea... more
An applicant requested records related to a review by Deloitte LLP (Deloitte) of the Ministry of Health’s (Ministry) data security and handling. The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry ultimately abandoned reliance on all exceptions but s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a property or system). Deloitte argued that ss. 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) applied to some information. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applied to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply but that s.15(1)(l) applied to some of the information. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to some of the information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it. It was not necessary to consider s. 22(1).
F19-39 Nov 1, 2019 Financial Institutions Commission The applicant asked the public body for access to certain records regarding Coast Capital Savings Cr... more
The applicant asked the public body for access to certain records regarding Coast Capital Savings Credit Union’s application to become a federal credit union. The public body gave the applicant partial access to the responsive records. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision to refuse the applicant access under s.14 (solicitor client privilege). However, she found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) only applied to some of the information in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose the remainder of the information to the applicant.
F19-38 Oct 29, 2019 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested access to records related to the Sunshine Coast Tourism Society’s application... more
An applicant requested access to records related to the Sunshine Coast Tourism Society’s application for the implementation of the municipal and regional district tax in two regional districts. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) withheld information in the records under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). For some of the records, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor client privilege), but ordered it to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. The adjudicator also found the Ministry was not authorized or required to withhold information under ss. 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations) or 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy).
P19-03 Oct 21, 2019 Unifor Local 114 An employee of Unifor National complained that Unifor Local 114 contravened several sections of the ... more
An employee of Unifor National complained that Unifor Local 114 contravened several sections of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) regarding alleged verbal disclosures of his personal information. The adjudicator made the following findings: PIPA applies to unrecorded personal information; the evidence does not establish that one of the verbal statements was made; and the unrecorded personal information in the other two verbal statements is excluded from the scope of PIPA under s. 3(2)(a) (collection, use and disclosure of the personal information was for the personal or domestic purposes of the individual who is collecting, using or disclosing the personal information, and for no other purpose). It was not necessary to consider the remaining issues.
F19-37 Oct 18, 2019 Ministry of Finance The Commissioner decided to hold an inquiry regarding the Ministry of Finance’s authority to collect... more
The Commissioner decided to hold an inquiry regarding the Ministry of Finance’s authority to collect, use and disclose the personal information of property owners who are required to make a declaration under the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act. The adjudicator found that the information at issue is personal information and that the Ministry of Finance is authorized to collect, use and disclose it under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
F19-36 Oct 4, 2019 District of Sechelt An applicant requested records from the District of Sechelt related to a residential property develo... more
An applicant requested records from the District of Sechelt related to a residential property development. The District withheld information under several FIPPA exceptions. Mediation at the OIPC narrowed the issue for inquiry to s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, the adjudicator identified some information that may be subject to s. 22 (harm to third party privacy) and received submissions from the parties on this issue. The adjudicator determined that ss. 14 and 22 applied to some of the information and ordered the District to disclose the rest to the applicant.
F19-35 Oct 2, 2019 Board of Education of School District No. 39 The Board of Education of School District No. 39 asked the Commissioner not to hold an inquiry becau... more
The Board of Education of School District No. 39 asked the Commissioner not to hold an inquiry because it is plain and obvious that disclosing the records in dispute would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The investigator found that it is not plain and obvious that s. 22 applies to all of the information in the records in dispute. As a result, she denied the Board’s request that an inquiry not be held.
F19-34 Sep 24, 2019 All ministries of the government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier All ministries of the Government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier (Government) appl... more
All ministries of the Government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier (Government) applied for authority under s. 43(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard a number of access requests from the Official Opposition caucus (the Opposition). The BC Government claims it should be given authority to disregard the access requests because they are frivolous or vexatious. The BC Government also argues that it should be allowed to disregard the access requests because it is concerned the Opposition contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) in making the requests. The adjudicator determined that the access requests were not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b); therefore, the BC Government was not authorized to disregard the access requests. The adjudicator also declined to consider whether there was a PIPA violation under a s. 43(b) FIPPA application. She concluded that it was not appropriate for a public body to bypass the PIPA complaint process through a s. 43 FIPPA application.
F19-33 Sep 12, 2019 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested access to a variety of records about himself in the files of a specific Mini... more
The applicant requested access to a variety of records about himself in the files of a specific Ministry of Attorney General employee. The Ministry of Attorney General denied access to the records on the basis that s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to most of the withheld information, but ordered the Ministry to disclose two particular emails to the applicant.
F19-32 Aug 30, 2019 Thompson Rivers University The applicant requested that the Commissioner order the public body to respond to her access request... more
The applicant requested that the Commissioner order the public body to respond to her access request as required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the public body had not responded to the request in accordance with FIPPA and ordered it to do so.
P19-02 Aug 28, 2019 Courtenay-Alberni Riding Association of the New Democratic Party of Canada A complaint has been made under PIPA about the organization, which is an electoral district associat... more
A complaint has been made under PIPA about the organization, which is an electoral district association registered under the Canada Elections Act. The organization argued on constitutional grounds that PIPA does not apply to its collection, use or disclosure of personal information. It contended that PIPA is outside the province’s legislative authority to the extent that PIPA applies to the organization. It also argued that, under the constitutional paramountcy doctrine, the Canada Elections Act and other federal statutes prevail over PIPA. The Commissioner concludes that neither of these constitutional objections succeeds. A further hearing in this inquiry will be scheduled to consider the merits of the complainants’ allegations.
F19-31 Aug 22, 2019 British Columbia Assessment Authority The applicants requested records related to the BC Assessment Authority’s 2015 assessment of a prope... more
The applicants requested records related to the BC Assessment Authority’s 2015 assessment of a property. The matter resulted in Order F17-48. Order F17-48 was reopened to consider whether information which the adjudicator ordered to be disclosed could be used to calculate figures which were ordered to be withheld under s. 21(2) of FIPPA (information gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability). The adjudicator held that some of the information which was ordered to be disclosed in Order F17-48 was required to be withheld because it would reveal information which had been held to be subject to s. 21(2).
F19-30 Jul 29, 2019 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist requested various reports which allegedly relate to a named third party. The British Co... more
A journalist requested various reports which allegedly relate to a named third party. The British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist. The adjudicator found that BCLC was authorized under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist.
F19-29 Jul 29, 2019 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure An applicant requested records about a third party’s proposed Lions Gate bridge climb. The Ministry ... more
An applicant requested records about a third party’s proposed Lions Gate bridge climb. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) decided to disclose some of the information and to withhold other information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The third party requested a review of the Ministry’s decision, arguing that more of the information should be withheld under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) applied to all of the information in dispute, as the Ministry and third party had established a reasonable expectation of harm under s. 21(1)(c).
F19-28 Jul 24, 2019 City of Vancouver Two applicants requested access to records related to themselves and a particular property. The City... more
Two applicants requested access to records related to themselves and a particular property. The City withheld information in the records on the basis that s. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13(1) and 14 only applied to some of the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicants. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision to withhold information under s. 22(1).
F19-27 Jul 16, 2019 University of British Columbia An applicant requested information about himself from his former university. The university withheld... more
An applicant requested information about himself from his former university. The university withheld information under several Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions. The adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) and found that they applied to some of the disputed information. The adjudicator ordered the university to disclose the balance of the information in dispute.
F19-26 Jul 11, 2019 City of Vancouver An applicant requested invoices and payments to Ernst Young LLP (EY) for the empty home tax survey a... more
An applicant requested invoices and payments to Ernst Young LLP (EY) for the empty home tax survey and report submitted to the City of Vancouver (City) on November 4, 2016. The City decided to disclose the only responsive record, an invoice. EY requested a review of this decision, arguing that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) applied to information in the invoice. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision and ordered it to disclose the invoice in full to the applicant.
F19-25 Jun 21, 2019 Ministry of Advanced Skills and Training The Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training (Ministry) requested authorization to disreg... more
The Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training (Ministry) requested authorization to disregard the respondent’s 10 outstanding requests. The adjudicator found that, while most of the outstanding requests duplicate previous requests, the Ministry need only respond by referring the respondent to the appropriate previous requests. The adjudicator found, therefore, that these requests did not merit relief under s. 43. The adjudicator found that part of one request was new and also did not meet the criteria for relief under s. 43.
F19-24 Jun 4, 2019 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested access to correspondence between the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch of... more
The applicant requested access to correspondence between the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General and a number of online gaming companies. One gaming company argued disclosure of the information would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the Ministry to disclose the disputed information.
F19-23 May 21, 2019 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested access to records related to a contract between the Ministry of Attorney Gene... more
An applicant requested access to records related to a contract between the Ministry of Attorney General’s Liquor Distribution Branch (LDB) and Brains II Canada Inc. and/or Brains II Solutions Inc. (Brains II). The Ministry decided to grant partial access to the records. Brains II made a third-party request for review of the Ministry’s decision to disclose information, saying all of it fell under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator found that some of the information was Brains II’s commercial information and that some of this information was supplied in confidence. The adjudicator found, however, that Brains II had not established that harm under s. 21(1)(c) could reasonably be expected to result from disclosure of the records. The adjudicator confirmed LDB’s decision to disclose the information.
F19-22 May 13, 2019 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority An employee of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) requested access to emails which mentio... more
An employee of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) requested access to emails which mention his name. VCHA disclosed emails which the employee had received or sent or on which he had been copied. It withheld other emails under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that s. 13(1) also did not apply to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the rest of the information and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold this information.
F19-21 May 13, 2019 Ministry of Attorney General This is an order pursuant to s. 44 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, requ... more
This is an order pursuant to s. 44 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, requiring the Ministry of Attorney General to produce records over which it has claimed s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). This order is made in the context of an ongoing inquiry into the Ministry’s application of ss. 14 and 22 (harm to personal privacy) to certain records.
F19-20 May 3, 2019 Workers' Compensation Board The applicant requested records relating to WorkSafeBC’s settlement with a former WorkSafeBC employe... more
The applicant requested records relating to WorkSafeBC’s settlement with a former WorkSafeBC employee. WorkSafeBC identified a Memorandum of Settlement as responsive but withheld it on the basis of common law settlement privilege and ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body). The adjudicator found that WorkSafeBC was authorized to withhold the record on the basis of settlement privilege.
F19-19 Apr 23, 2019 Ministry of Finance Three third parties requested the Commissioner reopen Order F16-50. The adjudicator decided that it ... more
Three third parties requested the Commissioner reopen Order F16-50. The adjudicator decided that it had been procedurally unfair to not give the third parties notice and an opportunity to make representations at the initial inquiry, so she reopened Order F16-50. The adjudicator then decided that the Ministry was required to refuse to disclose even more information under s. 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act than it had been ordered to refuse to disclose in Order F16-50. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the records to the applicant.
F19-18 Apr 12, 2019 City of White Rock The City of White Rock refused access to records relating to its decision to censure one of its coun... more
The City of White Rock refused access to records relating to its decision to censure one of its councillors on the basis of ss. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b), 14 and 22(1) applied in part and ordered disclosure of the remaining information in dispute.
F19-17 Mar 29, 2019 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant requested information related to a recent change to the insurance regime for Uber, Lyft... more
An applicant requested information related to a recent change to the insurance regime for Uber, Lyft and taxis. The public body withheld some information under sections 12(1) (cabinet confidences); 13 (advice or recommendations); 14 (solicitor client privilege); 17 (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests); and 21 (harm to third party business interests). The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied to some of the withheld information, but not all of it. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1), 14, 17 and 21 did not apply to the remaining information and, therefore, ordered the public body to disclose that information to the applicant.
F19-16 Mar 29, 2019 Metro Vancouver Regional District An applicant requested records related to Metro Vancouver?s permit authorizing emission from a steel... more
An applicant requested records related to Metro Vancouver?s permit authorizing emission from a steel galvanizing plant. Order F18-07 held that Metro Vancouver was required to withhold the information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant subsequently claimed the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (disclosure in the public interest). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply.
F19-15 Mar 28, 2019 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA... more
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) to records related to her and her employment for a specified time period. The Ministry withheld information in the records on the basis ss. 13(1), 15(1)(g) and/or s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply to the records since the information did not qualify as advice or recommendations, but the Ministry was authorized to withhold some information under s. 15(1)(g) as it was related to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The adjudicator also determined that disclosing some of the information in dispute would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy and the Ministry was required to withhold it under s. 22(1). Lastly, the adjudicator found the Ministry did not fulfill its obligations under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about the applicant in a particular record and ordered it to do so.
F19-14 Mar 26, 2019 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy An applicant sought access to a two page email chain between a Ministry employee and a Deputy Region... more
An applicant sought access to a two page email chain between a Ministry employee and a Deputy Regional Crown Counsel. The Ministry refused access under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the email chain was not protected by solicitor client privilege and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
F19-13 Mar 25, 2019 City of Vancouver The applicant requested accident reports from the City of Vancouver involving youth at municipal rec... more
The applicant requested accident reports from the City of Vancouver involving youth at municipal recreational facilities. The applicant was only interested in certain information from the accident reports. The adjudicator determined that the information at issue in the inquiry was limited to a few categories of information in the accident reports, specifically age of the injured, the description and cause of injury and the treatment provided. Ultimately, the adjudicator found that the City was not required under s. 22(1) to withhold this information because it did not qualify as “personal information” in this case.
F19-12 Mar 20, 2019 Township of Langley An applicant requested development permit drawings for a proposed development in the Township of Lan... more
An applicant requested development permit drawings for a proposed development in the Township of Langley (Langley). Langley denied access to the drawings under ss. 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered Langley to disclose the drawings to the applicant.
F19-11 Mar 20, 2019 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy An applicant requested records related to a permit application for an organic composting facility ne... more
An applicant requested records related to a permit application for an organic composting facility near Lytton BC. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (Ministry) decided to disclose the records. The permit applicant requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC, arguing that the records are protected by s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the Ministry to disclose the records to the applicant.
F19-10 Mar 19, 2019 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) The applicant requested access to the Burrard Station East Entrance Concept Design Report. TransLink... more
The applicant requested access to the Burrard Station East Entrance Concept Design Report. TransLink refused to disclose parts of the record on the basis of ss. 13(1), 17(1) and 15(1)(l) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that TransLink was not authorized to withhold information in dispute under ss. 13(1) and 17(1) but was authorized under s. 15(1)(l) to withhold some of the information in dispute.
F19-09 Mar 7, 2019 Interior Health Authority The complainant requested that the Interior Health Authority waive its fees for records related to e... more
The complainant requested that the Interior Health Authority waive its fees for records related to emergency department closures. The adjudicator found that the records related to a matter of public interest within s. 75(5)(b) and that the applicant was entitled to a fee waiver.
F19-08 Feb 15, 2019 Ministry of Citizens' Services & Ministry of Finance, Public Service Agency The Ministries of Finance and Citizens’ Services (Ministries) requested authorization to disregard a... more
The Ministries of Finance and Citizens’ Services (Ministries) requested authorization to disregard a respondent’s outstanding requests on the grounds that the requests are frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the requests were neither frivolous nor vexatious and that the Ministries were not, therefore, authorized to disregard them.
F19-07 Feb 15, 2019 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure An applicant requested Ministry meeting minutes relating to damage to his property. The Ministry ref... more
An applicant requested Ministry meeting minutes relating to damage to his property. The Ministry refused to disclose any information in the responsive records, claiming solicitor client privilege protects it all. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 of FIPPA authorizes the Ministry to refuse to disclose some of the withheld information but not all of it.
F19-06 Feb 7, 2019 City of Surrey An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy ... more
An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City of Surrey (City) disclosed many records but also withheld information related to its investigation of his off-duty conduct under several exceptions in FIPPA: ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations); 15(1) (harm to law enforcement); 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations); 17(1) (harm to public body?s financial or economic interests); 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety); and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 16(1)(b) applied to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(a) and (d), 17(1), 19(1)(a) and (b) and 22(1) did not apply to the remaining withheld information and ordered that the City disclose this information to the employee.
F19-05 Feb 4, 2019 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority A third party requested a review of a public body’s decision to release information to an applicant.... more
A third party requested a review of a public body’s decision to release information to an applicant. The third party submitted that s. 21(1) requires the public body to withhold the disputed information because the release of the information would harm its business interests. The adjudicator determined that s. 21(1) does not require the public body to refuse access to the information.
F19-04 Jan 29, 2019 Office of the Premier A journalist requested copies of an employee’s emails for a 12-hour period in April 2017. The Office... more
A journalist requested copies of an employee’s emails for a 12-hour period in April 2017. The Office of the Premier disclosed three pages of records and said it was not obliged under s. 6(1) (duty to assist an applicant) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to search the employee’s Recover Deleted Items folder for any other responsive records. The adjudicator found that the Office of the Premier should have searched this folder in the first instance and that, therefore, it had not complied with its duty under s. 6(1). At the time of the inquiry, the requested emails were no longer in the employee’s Recover Deleted Items folder because the system had automatically deleted them from that folder and saved them to a backup server. The adjudicator further found that, in view of the complexity, effort and cost involved, the Office of the Premier is not obliged to restore the emails from the backup in order to respond to the journalist’s access request.
F19-03 Jan 25, 2019 BC Pavilion Corporation The applicant requested records relating to the Vancouver Whitecaps lease or licence agreement with ... more
The applicant requested records relating to the Vancouver Whitecaps lease or licence agreement with the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo). PavCo refused access to a small amount of information on the basis of ss. 17(1) and 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that neither ss. 17(1) or 21(1) apply to the information in dispute.
P19-01 Jan 24, 2019 Little Qualicum River Village Strata Corporation The applicant made a request to the strata corporation for copies of correspondence complaining abou... more
The applicant made a request to the strata corporation for copies of correspondence complaining about her dog. The strata corporation refused to disclose the parts of the correspondence that identified other individuals. The adjudicator found that s. 23 of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) did not apply because the applicant’s request was not for access to her own personal information under PIPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant’s request was made pursuant to s. 36(1)(a) of the Strata Property Act. The adjudicator had no jurisdiction to decide the applicant’s complaint about the strata corporation’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Strata Property Act.
F19-02 Jan 10, 2019 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia The applicant requested access to her personal information contained in records related to her compl... more
The applicant requested access to her personal information contained in records related to her complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC. The applicant’s personal information was intermingled with the personal information of several third parties. The adjudicator held that s. 22 of FIPPA did not apply to some of the information in dispute, specifically information already known to the applicant. However, the College was required to withhold the remainder of the applicant’s personal information because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy under s. 22.
F19-01 Jan 7, 2019 Ministry of Attorney General An applicant requested records relating to the Ministry’s procurement of legal services from externa... more
An applicant requested records relating to the Ministry’s procurement of legal services from external counsel for a specified legal matter. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 of FIPPA authorizes the Ministry to refuse to disclose the withheld information because it is subject to solicitor client privilege.
P18-02 Dec 20, 2018 Teck Resources Limited Teck Resources Limited requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 50(1) of the... more
Teck Resources Limited requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 50(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to decline to hold an inquiry into its decision to withhold information in response to the respondent’s request for access to his personal information. The adjudicator granted Teck’s request because it was plain and obvious that an exception of PIPA applied to the withheld information.
F18-51 Dec 11, 2018 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority A journalist requested access to records about the Site C project. BC Hydro disclosed some records b... more
A journalist requested access to records about the Site C project. BC Hydro disclosed some records but refused to disclose information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 17 applied to some of the information, but ss. 19(1)(a) and 22 did not apply to any information. It was not necessary to consider whether s. 14 applied. BC Hydro was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information.
F18-50 Dec 4, 2018 British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission An applicant requested access to records related to a permit to build and operate a liquefied natura... more
An applicant requested access to records related to a permit to build and operate a liquefied natural gas facility. The public body refused access under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant claims the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The applicant narrowed his request significantly during the inquiry and the adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the information remaining in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose it to the applicant.
F18-49 Nov 26, 2018 Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources An applicant requested access to records about a meeting between the former Minister of Natural Gas ... more
An applicant requested access to records about a meeting between the former Minister of Natural Gas Development and executives of a company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas processing and export facility. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them pursuant to exceptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the Ministry was required to disclose the information under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to most of the information but s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) did not. The Ministry was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information in dispute.
F18-48 Nov 21, 2018 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested Vancouver Police Department (VPD) files about himself for the period 2003 on... more
The applicant requested Vancouver Police Department (VPD) files about himself for the period 2003 onwards. The VPD disclosed most of the information in the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the withheld information, with the exception of the identities of some of the third parties and a small amount of background information about them.
F18-47 Nov 14, 2018 Provincial Health Services Authority An applicant requested that the BC Emergency Health Services (EHS) disclose records and audio record... more
An applicant requested that the BC Emergency Health Services (EHS) disclose records and audio recordings related to his calls to 911. EHS disclosed audio recordings and an event chronology, but it withheld the names of its employees in the event chronology under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. Disclosing the employee names in the event chronology would also identify the employees in the audio recordings. The adjudicator found that identifying the EHS employees in the audio recordings was an unreasonable invasion of their privacy; therefore, EHS was required to withhold the employee names in the event chronology under s. 22.
F18-46 Nov 7, 2018 Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia The applicant requested all records related to a complaint he made against a member of the Associati... more
The applicant requested all records related to a complaint he made against a member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (APEG). APEG refused access on the basis of ss. 14 and 22 of FIPPA and s. 46 of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, but only s. 14 was at issue in the inquiry. The adjudicator found that APEG was authorized to refuse access to the information in dispute under s. 14.
F18-45 Nov 6, 2018 City of White Rock In a re-opened inquiry, the adjudicator considered whether two records related to the City of White ... more
In a re-opened inquiry, the adjudicator considered whether two records related to the City of White Rock connecting to the Metro Vancouver Regional District?s water supply were in the custody or under the control of the City of White Rock. The adjudicator found that they were not.
F18-44 Nov 1, 2018 Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicant requested records of any daycare subsidy paid to his ex-spouse for their son. The Mini... more
The applicant requested records of any daycare subsidy paid to his ex-spouse for their son. The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) refused access to the information on the basis that the applicant was not acting “for” or “on behalf of” his son and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the applicant’s ex-spouse’s personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting “for” or “on behalf of” his son and that MCFD was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s.22(1).
F18-39 Oct 16, 2018 Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services The Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services refused a journalist access to attachm... more
The Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services refused a journalist access to attachments to its contract with a third party related to the Okanagan Correctional Centre on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the third party’s business interests. Order 16-49 held that s. 21 did not apply and ordered the Ministry to disclose the information in dispute. The Ministry filed a petition for judicial review of that decision. The British Columbia Supreme Court quashed the decision and remitted the matter back, and this is the resulting decision. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was required to withhold some of the information in dispute pursuant to s. 21(1).
F18-43 Oct 10, 2018 Ministry of Finance & Ministry of Attorney General An applicant asked the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Attorney General for access to record... more
An applicant asked the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Attorney General for access to records about the BC government?s decision to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores and the new wholesale pricing model for alcoholic beverages. The Ministries disclosed some information, but withheld other information under s. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and s. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that ss. 12(1) or 13(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and ordered the Ministries to disclose the remainder of the information to the applicant.
F18-42 Oct 3, 2018 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant requested from ICBC access to a list of Robbins Parking employees, who were authorized ... more
An applicant requested from ICBC access to a list of Robbins Parking employees, who were authorized under an information sharing agreement to access information about vehicle owners. ICBC provided the applicant with a letter from the parking company, but withheld employee names and a cell phone number under s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22 did not apply.
F18-41 Oct 3, 2018 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development & Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy An environmental organization requested access to records regarding British Columbia?s approach to m... more
An environmental organization requested access to records regarding British Columbia?s approach to managing species at risk. Two ministries responded and disclosed records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13 (advice and recommendations) and 15(1)(l) (security of property or system). The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied to most of the information, but ss. 12(1) and 15(1)(l) did not apply.
F18-40 Oct 2, 2018 City of Coquitlam The applicant requested a copy of a contract between a towing company and the City for towing and st... more
The applicant requested a copy of a contract between a towing company and the City for towing and storage services. The City disclosed the contract but withheld revenue sharing fees under s. 21(1) of FIPPA (harm to the business interests of the towing company). The adjudicator found that the withheld information was not “supplied in confidence” as required by s. 21(1) and the City was required to disclose the entire contract.
F18-38 Sep 27, 2018 Ministry of Children and Family Development An applicant requested records that related to himself, his deceased son and his son’s death. The ap... more
An applicant requested records that related to himself, his deceased son and his son’s death. The applicant made the request on his own behalf and on behalf of his son. The Ministry decided that the applicant’s request was not properly made on behalf of his son and he was not authorized to exercise his son’s access rights under FIPPA. It provided some records in response to the applicant’s own request but refused to disclose parts of them and other records under ss. 3 (scope of the Act), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as ss. 77(1) and 77(2)(b) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA) and s. 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not acting on behalf of his son and was not authorized to exercise his son’s access rights under FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry correctly applied ss. 13, 14 and 15(1)(l). The adjudicator also concluded that s. 22(1) of FIPPA and ss. 77(1) and 77(2)(b) of the CFCSA and s. 110 of the YCJA applied to some of the information. It was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider s. 3 of FIPPA.
F18-37 Aug 27, 2018 Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia The Office of the Auditor General applied for relief from access requests made by a husband and wife... more
The Office of the Auditor General applied for relief from access requests made by a husband and wife pursuant to s. 43 of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that responding to the husband’s requests would unreasonably interfere with the OAG’s operations due to the systematic nature of the requests and that some of his requests were also frivolous and vexatious. As a result, the adjudicator authorized the OAG to disregard the husband’s requests. In addition, the adjudicator authorized the OAG to disregard the husband’s future access requests in excess of one open request at a time for two years from the date of this decision. The OAG was not entitled to relief under s. 43 with regards to the wife’s request.
F18-36 Aug 14, 2018 Ministry of the Attorney General A journalist requested information concerning the government’s legal costs for a high profile lawsui... more
A journalist requested information concerning the government’s legal costs for a high profile lawsuit. The Ministry of Attorney General created a record in response to the request but refused to disclose it under s. 14 of FIPPA on the grounds that it was subject to solicitor client privilege. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision. She also concluded that the Ministry was not required to disclose the information pursuant to s. 25(1)(b) (clearly in the public interest) of FIPPA.
F18-35 Aug 14, 2018 Ministry of the Attorney General The applicant requested the total amount of legal costs incurred by the Province in a high profile l... more
The applicant requested the total amount of legal costs incurred by the Province in a high profile lawsuit. The Ministry of Attorney General withheld the information on the basis of s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator held that the presumption that the requested information was protected by solicitor client privilege had been rebutted and required the information to be disclosed to the applicant.
F18-34 Aug 13, 2018 Law Society of British Columbia The Law Society of British Columbia applied for authority under s. 43(b) of the Freedom of Informati... more
The Law Society of British Columbia applied for authority under s. 43(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to disregard an access request from a former lawyer on the basis the access request was vexatious. It also requested authority to disregard all future access requests of similar breadth from the former lawyer. The adjudicator determined that the current access request was not vexatious and she declined to grant the Law Society of British Columbia relief under s. 43(b) for this request or any future access requests that it may receive from the former lawyer.
F18-33 Aug 10, 2018 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant requested records from the Law Society relating to its involvement a specific case bef... more
The applicant requested records from the Law Society relating to its involvement a specific case before the Court of Appeal. The Law Society withheld all the records in their entirety on the basis of ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed the decision of the Law Society to withhold the records under s. 14. As a result, the adjudicator did not consider s. 22.
F18-32 Aug 7, 2018 Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District The Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District applied for authorization to disregard two of the responde... more
The Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District applied for authorization to disregard two of the respondent’s requests for records because they are frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the requests were not frivolous or vexatious and therefore the public body was not authorized to disregard them.
F18-31 Aug 2, 2018 Township of Esquimalt An applicant requested access to documents relating to his neighbour’s property and to the boulevard... more
An applicant requested access to documents relating to his neighbour’s property and to the boulevard out front. The Township of Esquimalt disclosed some records but refused to disclose others under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) and 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. Esquimalt also said that some of the records were not in its custody or under its control. The adjudicator determined that the particular records at issue were in Esquimalt’s custody under s. 3(1). The adjudicator ultimately found that ss. 14, 15(1)(d), 16(1)(b) and 22(1) applied to some of the information, but ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(a), 15(1)(c) and 16(1)(a) did not apply.
F18-30 Jul 25, 2018 Provincial Health Services Authority (BC Emergency Health Services) The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) for all records, ema... more
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) for all records, emails, documents or any hand written notes or files that named or discussed her. PHSA refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA or that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that ss. 13 and 22 apply to some of the information and that PHSA is required to disclose the remaining information.
F18-29 Jul 23, 2018 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant requested records relating to a complaint that he made about a lawyer employed by the ... more
The applicant requested records relating to a complaint that he made about a lawyer employed by the Law Society. The Law Society withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 and required, in part, to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22.
F18-28 Jul 18, 2018 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TRANSLINK) An applicant asked for a copy of the purchase of services agreement between the public body and a th... more
An applicant asked for a copy of the purchase of services agreement between the public body and a third party. The agreement related to the public body's commuter rail service. The third party objected to the public body's decision to disclose all of the agreement. The third party submitted that s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) applied to some of the information in the agreement. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the public body to disclose all of the agreement to the applicant.
F18-27 Jul 10, 2018 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority A patient of a clinic run by the public body complained that a clinic manager used her personal info... more
A patient of a clinic run by the public body complained that a clinic manager used her personal information for a purpose inconsistent with, or other than, the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled, contrary to s. 32(a) of FIPPA. The adjudicator held that the public body failed to comply with s. 32(a) and ordered it to stop using the complainant?s personal information in contravention of s. 32(a).
F18-26 Jul 10, 2018 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested a review of the Ministry of Finance?s decision to refuse access under s. 14 (... more
An applicant requested a review of the Ministry of Finance?s decision to refuse access under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to a number of emails. She alleged that privilege did not apply because the government engaged in unlawful conduct. The applicant also argued that the Ministry of Finance must disclose the withheld information under s. 25 of FIPPA, as it was clearly in the public interest for this information to be released. The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply to the records and the Ministry of Finance was authorized to withhold the information under s. 14. The adjudicator was also not convinced that the Ministry of Finance had sought to advance conduct which it knew or should have known is unlawful.
F18-25 Jul 9, 2018 Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills & Training Order F16-24 authorized a crown agency to disregard access requests from the applicant over and abov... more
Order F16-24 authorized a crown agency to disregard access requests from the applicant over and above one access request at a time. The agency was later dissolved and its assets were transferred to the government pursuant to s. 68(1)(b) of the Private Training Act. The applicant subsequently made an access request under FIPPA to the Ministry. The Ministry disregarded the access request; relying on Order F16-24. The Ministry argued that Order F16-24 was an asset which was transferred to it by s. 68(1)(b) of the Private Training Act. The adjudicator found that Order F16-24 was not an asset within the meaning of the Private Training Act. The Ministry was required to respond to the applicant’s access request.
F18-24 Jun 26, 2018 Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources The applicant requested records related to the eDrive electricity rate for producers of liquefied na... more
The applicant requested records related to the eDrive electricity rate for producers of liquefied natural gas. The Ministry disclosed records but withheld some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations) and 14 (legal advice) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant said that s. 25(1) applied (public interest). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s s. 12(1) decision in part and all of its s. 14 decision but found that ss. 13(1) and 25(1) did not apply. The Ministry was ordered to disclose a small amount of information that could not be withheld under ss. 12(1) or 13(1).
F18-23 Jun 19, 2018 University of British Columbia UBC refused a journalist access to the rubric, criteria and scoring instructions it uses to assess t... more
UBC refused a journalist access to the rubric, criteria and scoring instructions it uses to assess the personal profiles of prospective students under ss. 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(e) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. Order F15-49 held that none of those provisions applied and ordered the University to disclose the records. UBC filed a petition for judicial review of the part of Order F15-49 that dealt with ss. 3(1)(d) and 17. The Court of Appeal quashed the ss. 3(1)(d) and 17 orders and remitted the matter back, and this is the resulting decision. The adjudicator finds that the records are outside the scope of FIPPA because s. 3(1)(d) applies. Given that FIPPA does not apply, the adjudicator declines to consider whether s. 17 applies.
F18-21 Jun 7, 2018 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority The applicant made a request to Vancouver Coastal Health Authority for presentations relating to a s... more
The applicant made a request to Vancouver Coastal Health Authority for presentations relating to a specific project involving a third party. VCH refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that they would harm the business interests of a third party under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply.
F18-20 Jun 6, 2018 Town of Gibsons An applicant requested a review of a decision made by the Town of Gibsons to refuse access to inform... more
An applicant requested a review of a decision made by the Town of Gibsons to refuse access to information in a record involving the Gibsons Public Market. The Town of Gibsons argued disclosure of the information would harm a third party?s business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the Town of Gibsons to disclose the withheld information to the applicant.
F18-19 Jun 5, 2018 University of Victoria A professor requested information about a University investigation into how he supervised graduate s... more
A professor requested information about a University investigation into how he supervised graduate students. The University gave partial access to the records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s decision regarding s. 14. The s. 13(1) and s 22(1) decisions were confirmed in part. The University was ordered to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
F18-18 Jun 5, 2018 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested briefing notes for the attorney general on a specific topic. The Ministry re... more
The applicant requested briefing notes for the attorney general on a specific topic. The Ministry refused to disclose the briefing notes in their entirety under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all of the information in dispute except for third party correspondence attached to one briefing note. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 did not apply to the correspondence. The adjudicator required the public body to sever the correspondence under s. 4(2) and disclose it to the applicant.
F18-17 May 16, 2018 City of Parksville The applicant corporation made a request to the City of Parksville (City) for records relating to th... more
The applicant corporation made a request to the City of Parksville (City) for records relating to the City's decision to undertake litigation against the applicant. The City refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal local body confidences under s.12(3)(b), advice or recommendations under s. 13(1), solicitor client privileged information under s. 14 or would unreasonably invade third party privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City could withhold some but not all of the information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1) and 14 of FIPPA. As a result of these findings, it was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider whether s. 22 applied.
F18-16 May 15, 2018 University of Victoria The applicant requested the names of all donors who donated over $3,000 to the University of Victori... more
The applicant requested the names of all donors who donated over $3,000 to the University of Victoria between October 1, 2015 and September 15, 2016, along with the amount they donated. The University provided some information to the applicant, but withheld other information pursuant to ss. 17(1) (harm to financial interests), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the University was authorized under s. 17 of FIPPA to withhold some of the information and required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose other information. A small amount of information was ordered to be disclosed to the applicant. Given the findings, it was not necessary to also consider s. 21.
F18-15 May 14, 2018 Ministry of Health A pharmacy’s lawyer requested copies of complaints and allegations about the pharmacy’s business pra... more
A pharmacy’s lawyer requested copies of complaints and allegations about the pharmacy’s business practices. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(d) (reveal identity of confidential source of law enforcement information) and s. 22 (harm to third-party personal privacy) applied to almost all of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 19(1)(a) (harm to safety) did not apply to the names of three Ministry employees and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the lawyer.
F18-14 May 14, 2018 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development An interest group requested access to records regarding the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Reso... more
An interest group requested access to records regarding the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development’s Wolf Management Plan. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to a small amount of information but that ss. 15(1)(f), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 19(1)(a) do not apply to other information (principally names and email addresses of Ministry employees) and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
F18-13 May 14, 2018 British Columbia Pavilion Corporation A journalist requested access to the operations and maintenance manual for BC Place Stadium?s retrac... more
A journalist requested access to the operations and maintenance manual for BC Place Stadium?s retractable roof. PavCo withheld most of the manual under s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property and systems) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) applied to the withheld information. It was not necessary to consider s. 21(1).
F18-12 May 10, 2018 Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation An applicant requested access to a settlement agreement involving an individual, two real estate age... more
An applicant requested access to a settlement agreement involving an individual, two real estate agents and other parties. The Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation (REEOIC) provided the applicant with a copy of the settlement agreement, but it withheld information under settlement privilege, s. 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), s. 21 (harm to business interests of a third party) and s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found REEOIC was authorized under common law settlement privilege to withhold the information. Given this finding, the adjudicator did not consider whether ss. 17, 21 or 22 also applied to the withheld information.
F18-11 Mar 29, 2018 City of Kelowna The complainant requested that the City of Kelowna provide any communications by certain Kelowna off... more
The complainant requested that the City of Kelowna provide any communications by certain Kelowna officials that mention him by name. Kelowna imposed a fee under s. 75(1) of FIPPA to process the access request. The complainant argued that the public body could not charge him a fee because he was requesting his own personal information within the meaning of s. 75(3). The adjudicator held the complainant's request was for his own personal information and Kelowna was not authorized to charge a fee.
F18-10 Mar 8, 2018 District of Sechelt The applicant made a request to the District of Sechelt for all correspondence, reports or notes rel... more
The applicant made a request to the District of Sechelt for all correspondence, reports or notes relating to incidents that occurred on his property and that were the subject of complaints by third parties. The District of Sechelt refused to disclose portions of the records under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute and that ss. 15(1)(c) and (d) did not apply.
F18-09 Mar 6, 2018 Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction The Ministry applied for authorization under s. 43 to disregard the respondent’s future access reque... more
The Ministry applied for authorization under s. 43 to disregard the respondent’s future access requests. The adjudicator held that the respondent’s past requests were repetitive and that one was frivolous. However, the Ministry did not establish that future requests would be frivolous or that responding to the respondent’s access requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The Ministry’s application was denied.
F18-08 Feb 27, 2018 St. Paul's Hospital The applicant requested copies of all discharge summaries relating to her deceased husband. The Hosp... more
The applicant requested copies of all discharge summaries relating to her deceased husband. The Hospital withheld the records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to act on behalf of the deceased and because it considered disclosure to be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that the applicant’s request was not made on behalf of the deceased individual and that disclosure of the records would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F18-07 Feb 27, 2018 Metro Vancouver Regional District An applicant requested records relating to an approval Metro Vancouver Regional District granted to ... more
An applicant requested records relating to an approval Metro Vancouver Regional District granted to a third party company to discharge emissions. Metro Vancouver released most of the responsive information, but withheld some records on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the third party company’s business interests. The adjudicator determined that Metro Vancouver was required to withhold some of the information in dispute pursuant to s. 21(1).
F18-06 Feb 8, 2018 BC Lottery Corporation A journalist requested a copy of a cheque as proof that certain funds had been repaid by a former BC... more
A journalist requested a copy of a cheque as proof that certain funds had been repaid by a former BC Lottery Corporation executive. He also requested copies of related correspondence including the agreement between the parties regarding the repayment. BCLC withheld information and records under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA and common law settlement privilege. Except for the cheque number and the memo line, the adjudicator determined BCLC was required to withhold information under s. 22 and it was authorized to withhold information under s. 14 of FIPPA and settlement privilege.
F18-05 Feb 6, 2018 Victoria Police Department An Applicant requested a police file from the Victoria Police Department (Public Body) relating to a... more
An Applicant requested a police file from the Victoria Police Department (Public Body) relating to an incident between the Applicant and two named employees of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (BC OIPC). The Public Body provided access to the records, with information withheld citing section 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s decision. As the records at issue involve personal information of BC OIPC employees, the Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC delegated the matter to an adjudicator from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta.
P18-01 Jan 23, 2018 Compass Group Canada Ltd. Several individuals requested records related to their applications to work for Compass Group Ltd. C... more
Several individuals requested records related to their applications to work for Compass Group Ltd. Compass refused to disclose information under ss. 23(3)(b), 23(4)(c) and s. 23(4)(d) of PIPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 23(4)(c) and s. 23(4)(d) applied to some of the information but s. 23(3)(b) did not apply at all. The adjudicator determined that Compass is able to remove the information to which ss. 23(4)(c) and (d) apply and provide the applicants with access to their own personal information.
F18-04 Jan 17, 2018 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The applicant requested all of his personal information from ICBC. The applicant requested a review ... more
The applicant requested all of his personal information from ICBC. The applicant requested a review of ICBC’s decision to refuse to disclose information under ss. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed in part ICBC’s decision to refuse access to information under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(d) did not apply. ICBC was ordered to disclose any information to which no FIPPA exceptions applied.
F18-03 Jan 12, 2018 City of Vancouver The applicant requested records that relate to the City of Vancouver’s decision to discipline the ap... more
The applicant requested records that relate to the City of Vancouver’s decision to discipline the applicant at work. The City of Vancouver refused access to portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s.13. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 applies to some of the information but that that the City is required to disclose the remaining information.
F18-02 Jan 12, 2018 Ministry of Education A mother and her daughter asked for access to records related to the daughter’s grade school educati... more
A mother and her daughter asked for access to records related to the daughter’s grade school education. The Ministry refused access to several records because they were outside the scope of FIPPA and to some information in other records because FIPPA exceptions applied. The adjudicator found that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act applied to several records, so FIPPA did not. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s.14 (solicitor client privilege), and confirmed, in part, the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to information under s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information to which s. 22 did not apply.
F18-01 Jan 10, 2018 College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC A physician requested records of an assessment of his medical practice conducted by the College’s Ph... more
A physician requested records of an assessment of his medical practice conducted by the College’s Physician Practice Enhancement Program. The College refused the applicant access to the records under s. 26.2(1) (quality assurance committee records) of the Health Professions Act. It also refused to disclose the records under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College was not required or authorized by any of those provisions to refuse to disclose the records to the applicant. The College was ordered to disclose the records to the applicant.
F17-57 Dec 14, 2017 Delta Police Department This order is issued concurrently with Order F17-56, which addresses the applicants’ request to the ... more
This order is issued concurrently with Order F17-56, which addresses the applicants’ request to the Delta Police Department (DPD) for any records about the applicants. DPD gave the applicants access to the responsive records but refused to disclose some information under several exceptions to disclosure under Part 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. During the Order F17-56 inquiry, DPD requested that the Commissioner not delegate the power to examine a subset of the records being withheld under s. 15(1)(a) (harm to law enforcement). The Acting Commissioner determined that s. 49(1.1) (delegation by the Commissioner) applied so he did not delegate the power to examine the subset of records. In this order, the Acting Commissioner confirms DPD’s decision to withhold the subset of records under s. 15(1)(a).
F17-55 Nov 30, 2017 City of White Rock The applicant requested copies of invoices issued to the City of White Rock (City) for legal service... more
The applicant requested copies of invoices issued to the City of White Rock (City) for legal services obtained in 2015 and part of 2016. The City provided records to the applicant, but withheld most of the information on the basis it was protected by solicitor client privilege under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the City was authorized under s. 14 to refuse to disclose some of the information in the invoices, including a description of the legal services. However, the adjudicator found that s. 14 did not apply to other withheld information, including the total amount of legal fees.
F17-54 Nov 15, 2017 City of Vancouver A journalist requested that the City of Vancouver disclose its contract with a company for voting so... more
A journalist requested that the City of Vancouver disclose its contract with a company for voting software and voter data storage. The City disclosed the contract except for the physical location of computer servers and their corporate operators under s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system). The adjudicator held that the City was not authorized to withhold the information.
F17-53 Nov 15, 2017 Ministry of Health A journalist requested records related to the health risks associated with eating meat from the Coqu... more
A journalist requested records related to the health risks associated with eating meat from the Coquitlam pig farm where the remains of Robert Pickton’s murder victims were found. The journalist requested a review of the Ministry of Health’s decision to refuse to disclose some records under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 15(1)(g) (prosecutorial discretion) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to most of the records under s. 14. However, the adjudicator found that s. 14 did not apply to six pages and ordered the Ministry to disclose them to the applicant. It was not necessary to consider s. 15(1)(g).
F17-52 Nov 7, 2017 Ministry of Citizens' Services Three First Nations/Bands requested a review of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (formerly known a... more
Three First Nations/Bands requested a review of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (formerly known as the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services) decision to disclose information to the Applicant related to the sale of two provincially owned properties. The First Nations/Bands argued that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm their business interests. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that s. 21 did not apply to the information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the Applicant.
F17-51 Nov 6, 2017 University of British Columbia Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested recor... more
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records related to communications strategies regarding the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI). The University of British Columbia (UBC) disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision regarding s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered UBC to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) does not apply.
F17-50 Oct 26, 2017 Ministry of Citizens' Services Two First Nations/Bands requested a review of a decision made by the Ministry of Citizens’ Services ... more
Two First Nations/Bands requested a review of a decision made by the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (formerly known as the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services) to disclose information related to the sale and purchase of provincially owned land. The First Nations/Bands argued disclosure of the information would harm their business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the Ministry to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.
F17-49 Oct 26, 2017 Ministry of Citizens' Services A commercial real estate services company requested a review of the Ministry of Citizens' Services (... more
A commercial real estate services company requested a review of the Ministry of Citizens' Services (formerly known as the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services) decision to disclose a part of its contract for real estate brokerage services. The company argued disclosure of the information would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the Ministry to disclose the disputed information.
F17-48 Oct 26, 2017 British Columbia Assessment Authority An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)... more
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to the 2015 assessment of the Oakridge Centre shopping mall. The BC Assessment Authority (BCA) disclosed 17 pages of records, withholding much of the information under s. 21(2) (information gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that BCA was required to withhold most of the severed information under s. 21(2) but could disclose the rest.
F17-47 Oct 26, 2017 University of British Columbia An unsuccessful proponent in a 2011 Request for Proposal process requested a copy of the successful ... more
An unsuccessful proponent in a 2011 Request for Proposal process requested a copy of the successful bid. UBC disclosed some information but refused access to part of the bid, including the successful proponent’s prices, under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interest) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision.
F17-46 Oct 19, 2017 University of British Columbia An applicant requested access to her personal information. The University of British Columbia disclo... more
An applicant requested access to her personal information. The University of British Columbia disclosed over 800 pages of records, withholding some information under ss. 13(1) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered UBC to disclose the information to which s. 22(1) did not apply.
F17-45 Oct 12, 2017 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure A journalist requested access to records related to changes to a contract between the Ministry of T... more
A journalist requested access to records related to changes to a contract between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and a third party. The Ministry provided records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) and 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. While the inquiry was underway, the Ministry reconsidered its decision and determined that all of the information could be disclosed. The third party argued that s. 21(1) applied because disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its business interests. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the Ministry to disclose the information to the applicant.
P17-04 Oct 5, 2017 The Green Ceiling An applicant requested copies of her employment records. Approximately five months later, the organi... more
An applicant requested copies of her employment records. Approximately five months later, the organization still had not provided the applicant with the records. The adjudicator found that the organization has not fulfilled its duties under ss. 28 and 29 of Personal Information Protection Act and ordered it to provide the response by November 17, 2017.
F17-44 Oct 5, 2017 Office of the Premier Third parties requested a review of a decision made by the Office of the Premier to disclose informa... more
Third parties requested a review of a decision made by the Office of the Premier to disclose information related to the sale of provincially owned land. The third parties argued that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm their business interests pursuant to s. 21 of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Office of the Premier’s decision that s. 21 did not apply to the information, and ordered it to disclose the information to the applicant.
F17-43 Oct 2, 2017 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested that the Ministry of Finance disclose records relating to his employment. The... more
An applicant requested that the Ministry of Finance disclose records relating to his employment. The Ministry disclosed most of the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld pursuant to ss. 13 and 14, and required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
F17-42 Sep 29, 2017 Vancouver Island Health Authority The applicant requested information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (... more
The applicant requested information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) about the suspension of three physicians’ hospital privileges. VIHA refused to disclose the information pursuant to s. 51 of the Evidence Act and ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 51 did not apply to the records but confirmed VIHA’s decisions regarding most of the information withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator concluded that s. 17 did not apply to the records.
F17-41 Sep 25, 2017 City of Vancouver An applicant requested EasyPark's 2010-2015 financial statements and records showing its directors' ... more
An applicant requested EasyPark's 2010-2015 financial statements and records showing its directors' names, remuneration and expenses. The applicant said that disclosure of the records is clearly in the public interest under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override). The City of Vancouver (City) refused access to the financial statements under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party financial interests). It also said that EasyPark was not a public body and that the records related to EasyPark's directors were not in its custody or under its control. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the financial statements and ordered the City to disclose them. Finally, the adjudicator found that EasyPark is not a public body, that the City does not control EasyPark and that the records related to EasyPark's directors are not in the custody or under the control of the City.
F17-40 Sep 25, 2017 British Columbia Transit Corporation A BC Transit driver requested the dates of hire of his fellow drivers to pursue a dispute with his u... more
A BC Transit driver requested the dates of hire of his fellow drivers to pursue a dispute with his union over seniority lists. BC Transit refused access to the information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the dates of hire and ordered BC Transit to refuse access to them.
F17-39 Sep 13, 2017 Capilano University An applicant requested that Capilano University disclose records about a funding initiative for grad... more
An applicant requested that Capilano University disclose records about a funding initiative for graduates of its film studies program. The University released some records but withheld other records and information pursuant to ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator held that the University was not authorized to withhold any information under s. 17, but was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information it withheld under s. 14 and most of the information under ss. 13 and 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to provide a small amount of information to the applicant.
F17-38 Sep 13, 2017 Town of Gibsons The Gibsons Alliance of Business and Community (GABC) made two requests to the Town of Gibsons (Town... more
The Gibsons Alliance of Business and Community (GABC) made two requests to the Town of Gibsons (Town) for records about the George Hotel and Residences development. The Town denied the GABC’s requests to be excused from paying fees for processing their access requests because the records relate to a matter of public interest. The adjudicator found that the records do not relate to a matter of public interest, so GABC is not eligible for a fee waiver. The adjudicator also confirmed the Town’s exercise of discretion in deciding to charge fees, citing, among other things, the duplicative and broadly-worded nature of the GABC’s past and current requests and the negative effect on the Town’s resources.
F17-37 Sep 13, 2017 British Columbia Assessment Authority A union requested lease documents for all space leased by British Columbia Assessment Authority (BCA... more
A union requested lease documents for all space leased by British Columbia Assessment Authority (BCA). BCA refused to disclose some information in the lease documents under s. 21(1) of FIPPA (harm to third party business interests). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered BCA to disclose the disputed information.
F17-36 Sep 11, 2017 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (Translink) TransLink requested authorization to disregard four outstanding requests from the respondent under s... more
TransLink requested authorization to disregard four outstanding requests from the respondent under ss. 43(a) and (b) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that TransLink had not established that the requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations (s. 43(a)) or that they were frivolous or vexatious (s. 43(b)). The adjudicator found that TransLink was not authorized to disregard the four outstanding requests under either section.
P17-03 Jul 24, 2017 Surrey Creep Catcher Two individuals complained that an organization improperly collected, used and disclosed their perso... more
Two individuals complained that an organization improperly collected, used and disclosed their personal information. The organization had induced each individual to have online communication with a fictitious woman over the age of 18, subsequently conveyed that this decoy was under the age of 16, and arranged a meeting to confront each man for attempting to lure a minor. The organization video-recorded the encounter and disseminated the video on social media. The Acting Commissioner found that the organization collected, used and disclosed the complainants’ personal information contrary to the Personal Information Protection Act because it had not obtained their consent and had no other authority to collect, use or disclose their personal information. He ordered the organization to stop collecting, using and disclosing the complainants’ personal information, to destroy all of their personal information in its custody or under its control, and to ask others who disseminated the information to remove and destroy it as well.
F17-35 Jul 10, 2017 City of Vancouver Applicants requested information about a settlement agreement between the City of Vancouver and an i... more
Applicants requested information about a settlement agreement between the City of Vancouver and an individual who had been wrongfully incarcerated. The City provided the responsive records but withheld most of the information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), s. 21 (harm to business interests of a third party), s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized under s. 14 of FIPPA and under common law settlement privilege to withhold the information. Given these findings, the adjudicator did not have to consider whether ss. 17, 21 or 22 applied to the records.
F17-34 Jul 4, 2017 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The applicant requested all records relating to ICBC’s 2016 Hall of Shame/Anti-Fraud campaign. ICBC ... more
The applicant requested all records relating to ICBC’s 2016 Hall of Shame/Anti-Fraud campaign. ICBC refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision.
F17-33 Jun 28, 2017 Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia An applicant requested records from the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPAB... more
An applicant requested records from the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC). Specifically, he wanted information about the person he had nominated for a CPABC fellowship. CPABC refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied and confirmed CPABC’s decision to refuse to disclose the information under that exception. There was no need to make a decision regarding s. 22.
F17-32 Jun 6, 2017 Ministry of Justice The applicant requested records about a proposed Ministry policy regarding damage to the reputation ... more
The applicant requested records about a proposed Ministry policy regarding damage to the reputation of employees during legal proceedings. The Ministry disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 12 (cabinet confidences), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information from the records under ss. 13 and 14. Given that finding, there was no need to also consider ss. 12 and 22.
F17-31 Jun 6, 2017 Ministry of Justice An applicant requested information about Immediate Roadside Prohibitions that the Tofino RCMP issued... more
An applicant requested information about Immediate Roadside Prohibitions that the Tofino RCMP issued during a particular period of time. The Ministry provided the responsive records and withheld some information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence from a federal government agency) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized under s. 14 and required under s. 22 to withhold the information. The adjudicator, therefore, did not have to consider whether s. 16(1)(b) applied to the records.
F17-30 Jun 6, 2017 Ministry of Justice The applicant requested a list describing the subject matters of briefing notes. The Ministry refuse... more
The applicant requested a list describing the subject matters of briefing notes. The Ministry refused to disclose some descriptions under ss. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), 12 (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(h) and 14. She also confirmed its decision regarding s. 13(1), with the exception of eight of the descriptions. She found that s. 16(1)(b) applied to only five of the eight, and the other three must be disclosed to the applicant. There was no need to consider ss. 12 or 22.
F17-29 May 11, 2017 Law Society of British Columbia An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The... more
An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
F17-28 May 10, 2017 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure An applicant requested information about traffic at a redesigned intersection near a Tsawwassen Firs... more
An applicant requested information about traffic at a redesigned intersection near a Tsawwassen First Nation development. The Ministry provided the responsive records and withheld some information under s. 16(1)(a) (harm to relations between the government and an aboriginal government) and s. 16(1)(b) (reveal information received in confidence from an aboriginal government) of FIPPA. The applicant later stated that the Ministry must disclose the information, as it was “clearly in the public interest” to do so under s. 25. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the information under ss. 16(1)(a) or (b), and that s. 25 did not apply to the records.
F17-27 May 10, 2017 BC Emergency Health Services The applicant requested copies of a survey conducted by a co-worker and any related records. The pub... more
The applicant requested copies of a survey conducted by a co-worker and any related records. The public body located a survey cover letter, survey questions, the survey responses, and the names of the individuals who completed the survey. The public body disclosed some of the survey questions and responses to the applicant and withheld the rest under s. 22 of FIPPA (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The public body also located a related workplace investigation report and withheld it in its entirety under ss. 22 and 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s ss. 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that the public body was not required to refuse to disclose some information under s. 22 and ordered the public body to disclose that information to the applicant.
F17-26 May 9, 2017 City of Vancouver A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of s... more
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The third party argued that the payment was not “remuneration” within the meaning of s. 22(4)(e) because it was not severance pay. The adjudicator held that the payment was a form of remuneration, and, because it came within the scope of s. 22(4)(e), it could not be withheld under s. 22.
F17-25 May 9, 2017 City of Vancouver A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of s... more
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance she received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.
F17-24 May 9, 2017 City of Vancouver A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of s... more
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.
May 9, 2017 Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1724 An applicant requested that his union provide him with access to all documentation in its control ab... more
An applicant requested that his union provide him with access to all documentation in its control about his grievance and settlement with his employer. The union refused access to any information under s. 30(2) of PIPA (refuse to confirm or deny existence of personal information collected as part of an investigation). The adjudicator found that s. 30(2) did not apply, and the union had not established that it was required or authorized to refuse disclosure under any of the s. 23 exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator also found the union had not complied with its duty to assist the applicant under s. 28(c). The adjudicator ordered the union to provide the applicant access to his personal information under its control or, if it cannot be reasonably provided, with a reasonable opportunity to examine the information, withholding only information that it is authorized or required to withhold under s. 23 of PIPA.
F17-23 May 8, 2017 Ministry of Energy and Mines An applicant requested records related to the Ministry's participation in a federal review panel con... more
An applicant requested records related to the Ministry's participation in a federal review panel concerning the applicant's proposed mining project. The Ministry provided the responsive records but withheld some information pursuant to ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 17 (harm to economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator held that the Ministry was required to refuse to disclose all of the information in the records withheld under ss. 21 and 22 and was authorized to refuse to disclose most of the information in the records withheld under ss. 13, 14, 15(1)(l) and 17. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide a small amount of information to the applicant.
F17-22 May 2, 2017 WorkSafeBC An applicant requested records about a crane investigation. WorkSafeBC disclosed some information, b... more
An applicant requested records about a crane investigation. WorkSafeBC disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 and 14 apply to some of the withheld information.
F17-21 May 2, 2017 College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC An applicant asked for the combined total of legal fees and settlement amounts for legal matters bet... more
An applicant asked for the combined total of legal fees and settlement amounts for legal matters between the College and a former employee. The College said that it had no record with this combined amount in its custody or control and it was not obliged to create one under s. 6(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). It also said that the following exceptions applied to the requested information: ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of College), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the College had a duty under s. 6(2) to create a record for the applicant that contained the combined amount of legal fees and settlement amounts, and that the College was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose it to the applicant under ss. 14, 17 or 22.
F17-20 Apr 26, 2017 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist requested copies of emails between BCLC‘s chief executive officer ("CEO") and its forme... more
A journalist requested copies of emails between BCLC‘s chief executive officer ("CEO") and its former Chair and director ("director"). The director objected to disclosure on the grounds that the emails are personal correspondence and thus outside the scope of FIPPA. He argued alternatively that BCLC had improperly "collected" his personal information in the emails. The adjudicator found that the emails are under BCLC‘s control for the purposes of ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that BCLC had not "collected" the director‘s personal information in those emails for the purposes of s. 26 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to comply with Order F11-28, by disclosing the emails in severed form as previously ordered.
F17-19 Apr 26, 2017 City of Vancouver An applicant asked the City of Vancouver (“City”) for records showing the calculation of community a... more
An applicant asked the City of Vancouver (“City”) for records showing the calculation of community amenity contributions for a condominium development in the Mount Pleasant area of Vancouver. The City disclosed some information but withheld other information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to third-party interests) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applies to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) does not apply to the withheld information and that ss. 13(1), 17(1) and 22(1) do. It was not necessary to consider if s. 21(1) applied.
F17-18 Apr 12, 2017 City of White Rock The City applied for authorization to disregard certain of the respondent’s requests for records und... more
The City applied for authorization to disregard certain of the respondent’s requests for records under s. 43(a) and (b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that 14 of the 20 outstanding requests were systematic or repetitious and responding to them would unreasonably interfere with the City’s operations, so the City was authorized to disregard them under s. 43(a). The adjudicator found that another two requests were frivolous and they could be disregarded under s. 43(b). The City was also authorized to disregard the respondents’ future access requests, in excess of one open access request at a time, for a period of two years.
F17-17 Apr 12, 2017 City of White Rock A resident of the City of White Rock requested access to records related to a statement made by its ... more
A resident of the City of White Rock requested access to records related to a statement made by its Chief Administrative Officer about the municipal water supply. The City provided records but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 21 (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was not authorized or required to refuse access to the information it had withheld under ss. 12(3), 17 or 21. The adjudicator further determined that s. 25 (public interest) did not apply to the information. The issue of whether certain information was properly withheld under s. 14 was moot because the applicant already had the information as the result of another applicant’s FIPPA request.
F17-16 Apr 10, 2017 Office of the Superintendent of Pensions The Independent Contractors and Business Association requested access to information that 16 union-s... more
The Independent Contractors and Business Association requested access to information that 16 union-sponsored pension plans filed with the Office of the Superintendent of Pensions. The Superintendent withheld some of the requested information under s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that neither s. 21 nor s. 22 applied and ordered the Superintendent to disclose the information to the applicant.
F17-15 Mar 31, 2017 Ministry of Finance The Peace Valley Landowners Association (“PVLA”) requested a review of the Ministry’s decision to wi... more
The Peace Valley Landowners Association (“PVLA”) requested a review of the Ministry’s decision to withhold a briefing note related to the Site C Clean Energy Project, under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial interests) of FIPPA. The PVLA also argued that the Ministry was required to disclose the briefing note under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override). The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply to the briefing note. The adjudicator also found that s. 12(1) did apply to the information in the briefing note and required the Ministry to refuse the PVLA access to it. It was not necessary to consider ss. 13(1) and 17(1).
F17-14 Mar 31, 2017 Provincial Heath Services Authority An applicant requested access to records about a contract with Stericycle for the disposal of biomed... more
An applicant requested access to records about a contract with Stericycle for the disposal of biomedical waste. The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) decided to disclose the responsive records, which were an information sheet about a contract between HealthPRO and Stericycle and an expired contract between Stericycle and the PHSA and other BC health authorities. HealthPRO and Stericycle objected to this decision, arguing that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) applied to the two records. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the records and required the PHSA to disclose them to the applicant.
F17-13 Mar 31, 2017 Vancouver Island Health Authority A VIHA employee requested access to all information about her. VIHA provided records but refused to ... more
A VIHA employee requested access to all information about her. VIHA provided records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 3(1)(d) (outside scope of Act), 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply and VIHA was required to disclose that information to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s ss. 13, 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that VIHA was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose other information under those exceptions and ordered VIHA to disclose it to the applicant.
F17-12 Mar 29, 2017 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested records related to a workplace investigation. The Ministry of Finance disclos... more
An applicant requested records related to a workplace investigation. The Ministry of Finance disclosed the responsive records but severed the contents of one email pursuant to ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 14 (legal advice) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to withhold the information under s. 14, and therefore did not need to consider s. 13.
F17-11 Mar 20, 2017 Ministry of Health An applicant requested records related to a residency investigation regarding him and his family. Th... more
An applicant requested records related to a residency investigation regarding him and his family. The Ministry denied access to information under ss. 15(1)(c) (harm to effectiveness of investigative techniques and procedures), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to financial interests) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) applied to some information but not to other information, including information which had already been disclosed. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply at all. The applicant was not interested in the information withheld under ss. 15(1)(l) and 22(1) and it was therefore not necessary to consider these exceptions.
F17-10 Mar 20, 2017 The Board of Education of School District No. 40 (New Westminster) An applicant requested a copy of a report on options for replacing New Westminster Secondary School.... more
An applicant requested a copy of a report on options for replacing New Westminster Secondary School. The School District disclosed the report in severed form, withholding information under s. 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial interests). The adjudicator confirmed the School District’s decision to withhold the information on the grounds that potential bid proponents could use the information in preparing their bids, to the detriment of the School District’s financial interests.
F17-09 Feb 23, 2017 Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia An applicant asked the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (“PGT”) for records related t... more
An applicant asked the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (“PGT”) for records related to a deceased individual. The PGT refused to disclose the personal information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant was not satisfied with this response and asked that this matter proceed to inquiry. The PGT requested the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56 to not hold an inquiry. The investigator found that it was not plain and obvious that disclosure of the deceased’s information would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22; therefore, the PGT’s request that an inquiry not be held was denied.
F17-08 Feb 21, 2017 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The Ministry disclosed a report in severed form, withholding some information under s. 13(1) (advice... more
The Ministry disclosed a report in severed form, withholding some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2)(a) (factual material), s. 13(2)(g) (final report) and s. 13(2)(m) (information cited publicly) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.
F17-07 Feb 21, 2017 Ministry of Finance A journalist requested records related to the business case for the replacement of the Massey Tunnel... more
A journalist requested records related to the business case for the replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a bridge. The Ministry of Finance disclosed the responsive records in severed form. It argued at the inquiry that ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) apply to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to all of the withheld information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it. It was not necessary to consider s. 12(1).
P17-01 Feb 10, 2017 Construction Maintenance and Allied Workers Local 2423 A complainant alleged that the organization had disclosed his personal information contrary to PIPA ... more
A complainant alleged that the organization had disclosed his personal information contrary to PIPA after a document containing organization member names and their corresponding debts to the organization was placed in a public workplace location. The complainant also alleged that the organization failed to protect the personal information in its custody or control. The adjudicator found s. 18(1)(g) of PIPA did not authorize the organization to disclose the personal information, and the organization did not protect the personal information in its custody and control, contrary to s. 34 of PIPA.
F17-06 Feb 9, 2017 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ICBC disclosed to an applicant a copy of a transcript of an interview with another individual, withh... more
ICBC disclosed to an applicant a copy of a transcript of an interview with another individual, withholding most of the information under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the fact that the applicant already knows almost all of the withheld information outweighs any presumed invasion of the other individual’s personal privacy. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the transcript to the applicant.
F17-05 Feb 6, 2017 British Columbia Securities Commission A third party objected to BCSC’s decision to disclose records related to a complaint he made to BCSC... more
A third party objected to BCSC’s decision to disclose records related to a complaint he made to BCSC. The third party argued that disclosure of any of the records would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found BCSC was required to withhold some third party personal information, but the remaining information was to be disclosed to the applicant.
F17-04 Jan 26, 2017 Ministry of Children and Family Development An applicant requested access to records, including information about his children. The Ministry was... more
An applicant requested access to records, including information about his children. The Ministry was satisfied he was their guardian but said he had not shown that he was acting for or on behalf of the children in compliance with s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA, s. (1)(a) of the FIPP Regulation and s. 76(1)(a) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, in exercising their right of access to their personal information. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision.
F17-03 Jan 16, 2017 City of Nanaimo Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several ... more
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
F17-02 Jan 9, 2017 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) A journalist requested a specific contract between TransLink and Burrard Communications, in addition... more
A journalist requested a specific contract between TransLink and Burrard Communications, in addition to any reports from Burrard about its activities under the contract. TransLink disclosed the records in severed form, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not apply to some information about Burrard’s principal, as the journalist already knows this information, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist.
F17-01 Jan 9, 2017 Regional District of Nanaimo An employee of the Regional District of Nanaimo requested access to any records containing his name.... more
An employee of the Regional District of Nanaimo requested access to any records containing his name. The Regional District provided records but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Regional District’s decision regarding s. 13 but found that it was not authorized or required to refuse access to information under ss. 12(1), 17 or 21. The adjudicator also found that the Regional District is only required to refuse to give the applicant access to a portion of the information being withheld under s. 22.
F16-52 Dec 23, 2016 Office of the Premier An applicant requested records relating to a personal vacation of the Premier of British Columbia. T... more
An applicant requested records relating to a personal vacation of the Premier of British Columbia. The Office of the Premier withheld records and information under s. 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), s. 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), s. 19 (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Premier’s Office was authorized or required to refuse to disclose some of the withheld information under ss. 15, 16 and 22, and did not have to consider s. 19. The Premier’s Office was ordered to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.
F16-51 Dec 22, 2016 British Columbia Pavilion Corporation A journalist requested access to the contract between PavCo and TED Conferences for the March 2014 T... more
A journalist requested access to the contract between PavCo and TED Conferences for the March 2014 Ted Conference. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered PavCo to disclose it to the journalist.
F16-50 Dec 5, 2016 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested all reports of the Internal Audit and Advisory Services Unit and the Special... more
The applicant requested all reports of the Internal Audit and Advisory Services Unit and the Special Investigations Unit issued by the Ministry of Finance’s Comptroller General within a particular time frame. The applicant further requested the records be released pursuant to s. 25 (clearly in the public interest). The Ministry of Finance identified investigation reports responsive to the request but withheld them in their entirety pursuant to s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator did not consider s. 14, as she determined that the Ministry is required to refuse to disclose the majority of the information withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator further determined that s. 25 did not apply to the records.
F16-49 Dec 5, 2016 Ministry of Technology, Innovation, and Citizens' Services A journalist requested attachments to the contract between Plenary Justice Okanagan and the Ministry... more
A journalist requested attachments to the contract between Plenary Justice Okanagan and the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for the design, construction, financing and maintenance of the Okanagan Correctional Centre. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the information in the attachments because it was not “supplied” but negotiated. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the attachments to the journalist.
F16-48 Dec 5, 2016 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant requested access to vendors’ submissions in response to ICBC’s Request for Expressions ... more
An applicant requested access to vendors’ submissions in response to ICBC’s Request for Expressions of Interest #2011-006 (providing “bio hazardous vehicle cleaning” services) and any contracts with vendors for providing those services. ICBC decided to disclose BioSolutions Inc.’s Expression of Interest, withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). ICBC also decided to disclose the resulting contract with BioSolutions. BioSolutions objected to the disclosure of both records. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) does not apply to the information which ICBC decided to disclose and ordered ICBC to disclose it to the applicant.
F16-47 Dec 1, 2016 Vancouver Board of Education The applicant requested that the Vancouver Board of Education provide all records containing informa... more
The applicant requested that the Vancouver Board of Education provide all records containing information pertaining to the applicant. The Board disclosed some records while withholding others under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (legal advice) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Board is authorized to refuse to disclose information under s.13 and is required to refuse to disclose the majority of information under s. 22.
F16-46 Nov 17, 2016 Fraser Health Authority The applicant requested disclosure of records related to a licensing investigation following an acci... more
The applicant requested disclosure of records related to a licensing investigation following an accident at a day care. The public body provided the majority of the records, withholding some information under s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found the Health Authority was required to withhold most of the information on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy pursuant to s. 22(1) of FIPPA. A small amount of information was either not personal information or the Health Authority was not required to withhold it pursuant to s. 22.
F16-45 Sep 21, 2016 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) A reporter requested access to “Project Work Defect” notices related to Translink’s Compass Card pro... more
A reporter requested access to “Project Work Defect” notices related to Translink’s Compass Card project in Metro Vancouver. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply to the information in the notices. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the notices and ordered TransLink to disclose them to the reporter.
F16-44 Sep 21, 2016 BC Coroners Service An applicant requested access to records of communications between a named physician and the BC Coro... more
An applicant requested access to records of communications between a named physician and the BC Coroners Service (“BCCS”). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy) applied to the withheld information, as it consisted of personal opinions of or about the physician. The adjudicator ordered BCCS to withhold the information.
F16-43 Sep 21, 2016 City of Vancouver An applicant requested records regarding the City of Vancouver Bid Committee, which makes decisions ... more
An applicant requested records regarding the City of Vancouver Bid Committee, which makes decisions about the City’s procurement of goods and services. The City identified reports that were prepared by City staff for the Bid Committee. It disclosed portions of these reports but withheld some information under ss. 13 and 15 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized to refuse to disclose the majority of the information withheld under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and all of the information withheld under s. 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement).
F16-42 Sep 21, 2016 Ministry of Finance An applicant requested records related to the discovery of asbestos at a building where he had worke... more
An applicant requested records related to the discovery of asbestos at a building where he had worked for a time. The Ministry disclosed the records with the exception of a small amount of information related to other employees, which it withheld under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to this information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it.
F16-41 Sep 14, 2016 New Westminster Police Service The New Westminster Police Service investigated the applicant for a potential criminal offence. The ... more
The New Westminster Police Service investigated the applicant for a potential criminal offence. The applicant sought a memorandum prepared by Crown counsel regarding its decision to decline to lay charges against the applicant. The New Westminster Police Service withheld the memorandum in its entirety pursuant to s. 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion). The adjudicator confirmed New Westminster Police Service’s decision.
F16-40 Aug 26, 2016 Provincial Health Services Authority The Provincial Health Services Authority retained a law firm to conduct a workplace investigation. T... more
The Provincial Health Services Authority retained a law firm to conduct a workplace investigation. The applicant requested a copy of the report the investigating lawyer produced. The public body withheld two responsive reports pursuant to ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant argued ss. 14 and 22 did not apply, and that disclosure of the reports was in the public interest pursuant to s. 25. The adjudicator determined that the reports were privileged and the public body was authorized to withhold them under s. 14 and further held that section 25 was of no application in this case. Given the adjudicator’s finding that the public body was authorized to withhold the records under s. 14, she declined to consider the application of s. 22.
F16-39 Aug 26, 2016 Ministry of Advanced Education A third party requested a review of three decisions made by the Ministry of Advanced Education to di... more
A third party requested a review of three decisions made by the Ministry of Advanced Education to disclose information related to advertising work the third party did for the Ministry. The third party argued that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its business interests and the business interests of several other third parties.The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that s. 21 did not apply to the information, and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
F16-38 Jul 22, 2016 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant requested records from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia about a multi-car ... more
An applicant requested records from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia about a multi-car accident involving 18 vehicles. The applicant was the driver of one of the vehicles. ICBC withheld information in responsive records under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 or 22 applied to most of the withheld information, and that s. 14 applied to a few records. The adjudicator determined that s. 17 did not apply. ICBC was ordered to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.
F16-37 Jul 21, 2016 Law Society of British Columbia An applicant requested records from the Law Society of British Columbia about legal services he beli... more
An applicant requested records from the Law Society of British Columbia about legal services he believes a law firm provided to a lawyer in relation to the lawyer’s evidence in an estate litigation matter. The applicant believes the law firm was retained by the Law Society’s insurance department in relation to the lawyer’s professional liability insurance coverage. The Law Society requested that the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not hold an inquiry on the basis that it is plain and obvious that the Law Society is authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records that are responsive to the applicant’s request (s. 8(2)(b)). The adjudicator determined that it is not plain and obvious that s. 8(2)(b) applies. Therefore, the adjudicator dismissed the Law Society’s s. 56 application.
F16-36 Jul 18, 2016 BC Emergency Health Services An applicant requested a 911 transcript relating to a bicycle accident in which she was seriously in... more
An applicant requested a 911 transcript relating to a bicycle accident in which she was seriously injured. BC Emergency Health Services disclosed most of the transcript, but it withheld information that revealed the identity of the 911 caller under s. 22 of FIPPA (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The 911 caller was the other cyclist involved in the accident. After stating that s. 22 ordinarily applies to the identities of 911 callers, the adjudicator determined that s. 22 does not apply in this case. The adjudicator ordered BCEHS to disclose the withheld information to the applicant.
F16-35 Jul 14, 2016 City of Burnaby The applicant asked the City of Burnaby for a list of all legal fees and costs it incurred regarding... more
The applicant asked the City of Burnaby for a list of all legal fees and costs it incurred regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline since January 1, 2013. Burnaby refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that it was subject to solicitor client privilege, so s. 14 of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed Burnaby’s decision.
F16-34 Jul 13, 2016 City of Penticton A journalist requested access to an invoice for legal services that was submitted by a law firm to t... more
A journalist requested access to an invoice for legal services that was submitted by a law firm to the City of Penticton. Penticton refused to disclose the requested information under s. 14 of FIPPA on the grounds that it was subject to solicitor client privilege. The adjudicator confirmed Penticton’s decision.
F16-33 Jul 13, 2016 Ministry of Finance A journalist requested information about active grievances filed by employees of the Ministry of Hea... more
A journalist requested information about active grievances filed by employees of the Ministry of Health under the collective agreement governing their workplace. The Public Service Agency, which is part of the Ministry of Finance, responded to his request. The Ministry disclosed the number of active grievances for the requested period, but it refused to disclose any other information on the basis that to do so would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The information in dispute was contained in a table. The adjudicator determined that the majority of the information in the table would identify the grievors, so it was their personal information and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22. However, severing under s. 4(2) was possible, and the Ministry was ordered to disclose specific information that would not permit identification of the grievors.
F16-32 Jun 27, 2016 City of Richmond The applicant asked the City of Richmond for records relating to complaints made about him. The City... more
The applicant asked the City of Richmond for records relating to complaints made about him. The City withheld some of the requested information on the basis that it revealed policy advice or recommendations under s. 13, that it was privileged under s. 14, that disclosure of the information would be harmful to law enforcement under s. 15, that disclosure would be harmful to individual or public safety under s. 19, and that disclosure would be harmful to the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse access to the information at issue under ss. 13 and 14, but not under s. 15 or 19. He found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22.
F16-31 Jun 27, 2016 City of Grand Forks The applicant requested access to information in a contract between the City of Grand Forks and Nept... more
The applicant requested access to information in a contract between the City of Grand Forks and Neptune Technology Group (Canada) Ltd. regarding a residential water metering system. The City refused to give the applicant access to the requested information on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm Neptune’s business interests under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that s. 21 did not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose it to the applicant.
F16-30 Jun 27, 2016 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure The applicant requested records related to Ministry permits for work on a road on the Sunshine Coast... more
The applicant requested records related to Ministry permits for work on a road on the Sunshine Coast. The Ministry disclosed the requested records to the applicant, but it withheld some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision.
F17-56 Jun 23, 2016 Delta Police Department The applicants requested that the Delta Police Department (DPD) provide any records about themselves... more
The applicants requested that the Delta Police Department (DPD) provide any records about themselves. DPD gave the applicants access to the responsive records but refused to disclose some information in them under s. 68.1(9) of the Police Act and ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(e) (reveal criminal intelligence), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed DPD’s decision to withhold information under s. 68.1(9) of the Police Act, and under ss. 14, 15 and 22. The adjudicator found that DPD properly withheld information pursuant to s. 16(1)(b), with the exception of one small excerpt. The adjudicator also ordered DPD to reconsider its exercise of discretion respecting a second small excerpt withheld under s. 16(1)(b). In addition, during the inquiry, the applicants asserted that s. 25 (disclosure of the information is in the public interest) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply.
F16-29 Jun 13, 2016 Ministry of Finance The applicant made a request for records to the Ministry. Approximately seven months later, the Mini... more
The applicant made a request for records to the Ministry. Approximately seven months later, the Ministry still had not provided the applicant with a response. The Ministry was found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and was ordered to provide the response by June 24, 2016.
F16-28 Jun 8, 2016 Independent Investigations Office The applicant requested records relating to his employment with the IIO. The IIO withheld records an... more
The applicant requested records relating to his employment with the IIO. The IIO withheld records and information under s. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 16(1)(b) and 22. The adjudicator determined that the IIO was not authorized to refuse the applicant access to information under s. 15 and required it give the applicant access to that information (subject only to information that it was authorized to refuse to disclose under the other exceptions).
F16-27 May 25, 2016 BC Pavilion Corporation A journalist requested the contract between the NHL and PavCo for hosting the 2014 Heritage Classic ... more
A journalist requested the contract between the NHL and PavCo for hosting the 2014 Heritage Classic hockey game. PavCo disclosed most of the contract, withholding some information under s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator found that neither section applied and ordered PavCo to disclose the information in dispute to the journalist.
F16-26 May 19, 2016 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure The applicant asked the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for records relating to an ava... more
The applicant asked the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for records relating to an avalanche program. The Ministry withheld some of the information on the basis that it revealed policy advice or recommendations under s. 13, that the information was privileged under s. 14, and that its disclosure would be harmful to the government’s financial or economic interests under s. 17 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access to information under ss. 13 and 14, but not under s. 17.
F16-25 May 17, 2016 BC Securities Commission The applicant requested copies of his text messages the BC Securities Commission obtained during the... more
The applicant requested copies of his text messages the BC Securities Commission obtained during the course of its investigation of the applicant and others. The adjudicator confirmed BC Securities Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant access to the records under s. 15(1)(a) on the basis that disclosure would harm a law enforcement matter.
F16-24 May 3, 2016 Private Career Training Institutions Agency The Private Career Training Institutions Agency (“PCTIA”) sought authorization to disregard certain ... more
The Private Career Training Institutions Agency (“PCTIA”) sought authorization to disregard certain outstanding and future access requests made by the respondent. The adjudicator found that some of the outstanding requests are frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b) and PCTIA is authorized to disregard them. PCTIA is also authorized to disregard the respondents’ future access requests, in excess of one open access request at a time, for a period of two years.
F16-23 Apr 25, 2016 Superintendent of Real Estate The adjudicator found that the public body was authorized to refuse access to the identity of a comp... more
The adjudicator found that the public body was authorized to refuse access to the identity of a complainant, as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement information under s. 15(1)(d).
F16-22 Apr 25, 2016 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure In a court-ordered reconsideration of Order F14-20, the adjudicator found that s. 12(1) applies to t... more
In a court-ordered reconsideration of Order F14-20, the adjudicator found that s. 12(1) applies to the withheld information on the tolling framework for the Port Mann Bridge. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to withhold this information.
F16-21 Apr 19, 2016 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested witness statements, interview summaries and transcripts from the Vancouver P... more
The applicant requested witness statements, interview summaries and transcripts from the Vancouver Police Department (“VPD”) under FIPPA. The VPD withheld all of the records. The adjudicator found that the VPD was authorized to refuse access, on the basis that the records revealed information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion under s. 15(1)(g) of FIPPA.
F16-20 Apr 19, 2016 Ministry of Health The applicant, a health care practitioner whose billings were audited by the Ministry of Health, req... more
The applicant, a health care practitioner whose billings were audited by the Ministry of Health, requested records relating to a hearing that he had. The Ministry withheld the records on the basis that they were privileged under s. 14 of FIPPA. With one exception, the adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access to the information.
F16-19 Apr 19, 2016 Community Living BC The applicant, a former service provider for Community Living BC (“CLBC”), asked for records in whic... more
The applicant, a former service provider for Community Living BC (“CLBC”), asked for records in which he was identified, many of which related to concerns about clients’ quality of care. CLBC withheld some of the requested information as policy advice or recommendations under s. 13(1), and because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that CLBC was authorized or required to withhold the information on these grounds.
F16-18 Mar 31, 2016 British Columbia Pavilion Corporation and Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training A journalist requested copies of Treasury Board submissions related to funding BC Place renovations.... more
A journalist requested copies of Treasury Board submissions related to funding BC Place renovations. The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) applied to most of the information in dispute and that s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to the rest. The adjudicator ordered the public bodies to withhold the information under these sections.
F16-17 Mar 31, 2016 City of Vancouver Two journalists requested access to the final agreement between the City of Vancouver and Aquilini I... more
Two journalists requested access to the final agreement between the City of Vancouver and Aquilini Investment Group regarding the sale of units in the Olympic Village. The City proposed to disclose most of the agreements. The third parties, Aquilini and Millennium Group, objected to disclosure of much of the information on the grounds that it could reasonably be expected to harm their business interests under s. 21(1) or third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to a small amount of information and that s. 21(1) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the agreement, except for some personal information of tenants of the Village.
F16-16 Mar 31, 2016 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The BC Shorthand Reporters Association (“BCSRA”) requested access to the service agreement for court... more
The BC Shorthand Reporters Association (“BCSRA”) requested access to the service agreement for court reporting services between ICBC and Premiere Verbatim Reporting (“PVR”). PVR objected to disclosure of pricing information in the agreement, on the grounds that disclosure could harm its business interests under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that the pricing information was PVR’s financial information, but that it had not been “supplied” to ICBC for the purposes of s. 21(1)(b). It was therefore not necessary to consider whether the pricing information had been supplied “in confidence” under s. 21(1)(b), nor whether its disclosure could harm PVR’s business interests under s. 21(1)(c). The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the pricing information to BCSRA.
F16-15 Mar 15, 2016 District of West Vancouver An applicant requested that the District of West Vancouver provide all records two arbitrators gener... more
An applicant requested that the District of West Vancouver provide all records two arbitrators generated regarding the applicant’s harassment complaint against the West Vancouver Police Department. The District responded that the records were not in its custody or under its control within the meaning of ss. 3(1) or 4(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the records are not in the custody or under the control of the District within the meaning of s. 3(1) of FIPPA, so they are outside of the scope of FIPPA.
F16-14 Mar 15, 2016 District of Oak Bay An applicant requested records related to a District of Oak Bay development variance permit he was g... more
An applicant requested records related to a District of Oak Bay development variance permit he was granted in 2009 regarding his residence, as well as records related to bylaw enforcement matters involving him. Oak Bay disclosed nearly all of the information in the responsive records, but it withheld the identities of neighbours who opposed the applicant’s development variance application. The adjudicator determined that Oak Bay is required to refuse to disclose this information because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F16-13 Mar 15, 2016 Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner A journalist asked the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner for records related to a named po... more
A journalist asked the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner for records related to a named police psychologist. The OPCC withheld some records on the basis that they are outside of the scope of FIPPA due to s. 182 of the Police Act and/or s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA. It disclosed portions of the remaining records, but it withheld some information in them on the basis that it is exempt from disclosure under FIPPA. At inquiry, the OPCC withdrew its reliance on the exemptions to disclosure under FIPPA, and the adjudicator ordered the OPCC to disclose this withheld information to the applicant. For the records withheld as outside of the scope of FIPPA, the adjudicator confirmed the OPCC’s decision that these records are outside of the scope of FIPPA because they fall within the meaning of s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA.
F16-12 Mar 15, 2016 Ministry of Justice A former Independent Investigations Office employee requested a report that a labour relations consu... more
A former Independent Investigations Office employee requested a report that a labour relations consultant prepared for the Deputy Attorney General in relation to a complaint the applicant made against his former employer. The Ministry of Justice withheld the report under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to the report, so the Ministry is required to refuse to disclose it to the applicant.
F16-11 Mar 15, 2016 Ministry of Health An applicant requested a memo about a medical residency program for international medical graduates.... more
An applicant requested a memo about a medical residency program for international medical graduates. The Ministry of Health disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (legal advice) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 applies to some of the withheld information, and that s. 14 applies to the balance of the withheld information.
F16-10 Mar 3, 2016 Ministry of Energy and Mines The applicant requested access to records related to the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ investigation... more
The applicant requested access to records related to the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ investigation of a workplace fatality. An inquiry commenced into the Ministry’s decision to refuse to disclose some information to the applicant. During the course of the inquiry, the applicant revealed that he already had the information in dispute. As a result, the Ministry requested that the OIPC exercise its discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not hold the inquiry because the issues are moot. The adjudicator determined that the matter of the Ministry’s refusal to disclose the information in dispute was moot and no factors warranted continuing the inquiry. The inquiry was cancelled.
F16-09 Feb 26, 2016 Ministry of Justice The applicant requested access to Ministry records that mention a specific British Columbia Supreme ... more
The applicant requested access to Ministry records that mention a specific British Columbia Supreme Court decision involving the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. The Ministry refused the applicant access to the requested information on the basis that it was protected by solicitor client privilege, so s. 14 of FIPPA applies. The adjudicator found that the information met the criteria for legal advice privilege and the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose it under s. 14 of FIPPA.
F16-08 Feb 26, 2016 Ministry of Justice An applicant requested records concerning meetings between the Ministry and various stakeholders in ... more
An applicant requested records concerning meetings between the Ministry and various stakeholders in regards to the purchase or lease of certain properties in the Tofino area. The Ministry disclosed some records, but withheld some information under s. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). The adjudicator found that some information must be withheld under s. 12(1) and other information may be withheld under s. 14.
F16-07 Feb 22, 2016 Elections BC The applicant requested records related to the delegation of the Chief Electoral Officer’s powers an... more
The applicant requested records related to the delegation of the Chief Electoral Officer’s powers and duties under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. He also requested all memorandums of understanding between the Chief Electoral Officer or Elections BC and any other organization, agency or body. Elections BC refused to disclose the requested records under s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA (records outside the scope of Act). The adjudicator determined that s. 3(1)(c) applied to an event plan and three memoranda of understanding, but not to job descriptions and a delegation matrix. Elections BC was ordered to respond to the applicant’s request under Part 2 of FIPPA with respect to the job descriptions and the delegation matrix.
P16-01 Feb 18, 2016 Canadian Union of Public Employees (British Columbia Regional Office) The applicant made a request for access to her own personal information in the control of CUPE’s BC ... more
The applicant made a request for access to her own personal information in the control of CUPE’s BC Regional Office. CUPE disclosed some of the applicant’s personal information to her, but withheld other information on the basis that the information was protected by solicitor client privilege, so s. 23(3)(a) of PIPA applied. The adjudicator found that CUPE was authorized by s. 23(3)(a) of PIPA to refuse to disclose the information because it is protected by solicitor client privilege.
F16-06 Feb 15, 2016 Ministry of Health The applicant requested a research data access report and associated background information. The Min... more
The applicant requested a research data access report and associated background information. The Ministry disclosed some information but it withheld other information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant argued that this information should be disclosed under s. 25(1) (public interest). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was not required to disclose the requested information under s. 25(1). Further, the adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that disclosure of the personal information in dispute would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22(1), so the Ministry was ordered to provide this information to the applicant.
F16-05 Feb 12, 2016 Capital Regional District An applicant requested a 2009 Capital Regional District staff report recommending that Stantec Consu... more
An applicant requested a 2009 Capital Regional District staff report recommending that Stantec Consulting Ltd. be approved as the program management consultant regarding the development of a wastewater treatment plant in Greater Victoria. The CRD disclosed most of the report, but it withheld a small amount of information under s. 17 (disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body) and s. 21 (disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 17 and 21 do not apply to this information, and ordered the CRD to disclose it to the applicant.
F16-04 Jan 27, 2016 Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation The applicant requested records related to meetings between provincial ministries, a resort and a Fi... more
The applicant requested records related to meetings between provincial ministries, a resort and a First Nation regarding a specific property. The Ministry withheld some information under ss. 12(1), 13(1) and 19(1)(a). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to some information. The adjudicator also found that s. 19(1)(a) does not apply to some information and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant. It was not necessary to consider s. 12(1).
F16-03 Jan 27, 2016 City of Nanaimo The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withhold... more
The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withholding information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The Adjudicator found that all three exceptions applied.
F16-02 Jan 27, 2016 BC Pavilion Corporation A journalist requested access to reports on the number of attendees at Whitecaps and BC Lions games.... more
A journalist requested access to reports on the number of attendees at Whitecaps and BC Lions games. PavCo denied access to the responsive record under s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered PavCo to disclose the record to the journalist.
F16-01 Jan 20, 2016 Langara College The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, a... more
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
F15-72 Dec 23, 2015 Ministry of Public Safety The applicant requested access to his BC Corrections file. The Ministry disclosed a number of record... more
The applicant requested access to his BC Corrections file. The Ministry disclosed a number of records and withheld other records and information under ss. 15(1)(f), (g) and (l), 16(1)(b) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that ss. 15(1)(g), 16(1)(b) and 22(1) applied to some information and records. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(f) and (l) and s. 22(1) did not apply to other information and records and ordered the Ministry to disclose them.
F15-71 Dec 22, 2015 Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism Dynasty Plus Ltd. requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry... more
Dynasty Plus Ltd. requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism’s decision to disclose two contract amendments between the Government of British Columbia and Dynasty. Dynasty argued disclosure of the two contract amendments would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that s. 21(1) did not apply to the information it had decided to disclose because the information in the records was not supplied within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b) of FIPPA.
F15-70 Dec 22, 2015 Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism Keemax Asia requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Respo... more
Keemax Asia requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism’s decision to disclose two contracts and six contract amendments with the Government of British Columbia. Keemax argued disclosure of the two contracts and six contract amendments would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that s. 21(1) did not apply to the information it had decided to disclose because the information in the records was not supplied within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b) of FIPPA.
F15-69 Dec 22, 2015 Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism Dynasty Plus Ltd. requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry... more
Dynasty Plus Ltd. requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism’s decision to disclose a contract and its amendments between the Government of British Columbia and Dynasty. Dynasty argued disclosure of the contract and its amendments would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that s. 21(1) did not apply to the information it had decided to disclose because the information in the records was not supplied within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b) nor could disclosure of the records reasonably be expected to result in one of the harms set out in s. 21(1)(c) of FIPPA.
F15-68 Dec 22, 2015 Ministry of Health The applicant requested records about product listing agreements between pharmaceutical manufacturer... more
The applicant requested records about product listing agreements between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the Ministry. The Ministry disclosed some information but withheld other information under s. 17(1) of FIPPA (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body or the government of British Columbia). The third party, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, submitted that the information should also be withheld under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests). The adjudicator found that the Ministry is authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 17(1), with the exception of the names and job titles of the Ministry employees and the identity of the Third Party and its employees. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) does not apply to that information either, so it must be disclosed to the applicant.
F15-67 Dec 3, 2015 The Board of Education of School District 71 (Comox Valley) The former chair of the Board of Education for School District No. 71 (Comox Valley) requested recor... more
The former chair of the Board of Education for School District No. 71 (Comox Valley) requested records related to an operational review of the school district. The Board refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that all of the information withheld under s. 14 was protected by solicitor client privilege and that the privilege had not been waived.
F15-66 Dec 3, 2015 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist requested records related to the use of free vouchers on BCLC’s PlayNow.com gaming site... more
A journalist requested records related to the use of free vouchers on BCLC’s PlayNow.com gaming site. BCLC withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and s. 17(1) (harm to BCLC’s financial interests). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to much of the information and that s. 17(1) applied to other information. The adjudicator also found that s. 17(1) did not apply to some information and ordered BCLC to disclose this information.
F15-65 Dec 3, 2015 City of Vancouver, Resort Municipality of Whistler, Ministry of Finance A journalist requested access to minutes, agendas and correspondence of four directors of the Vancou... more
A journalist requested access to minutes, agendas and correspondence of four directors of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (“VANOC”). The adjudicator found that the requested records are not in the custody or under the control of the public bodies.
F15-64 Dec 3, 2015 Ministry of Health An applicant requested records related to the costs of a 2012 investigation into a health data breac... more
An applicant requested records related to the costs of a 2012 investigation into a health data breach in the Ministry of Health. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was not required under s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA (public interest) to disclose the total amounts paid to lawyers who provided legal services in relation to the investigation. Further, the adjudicator found that the Ministry was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor client privilege).
F15-63 Nov 24, 2015 Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services The applicant requested a record of email activity sent to and from Ministry and other public bodies... more
The applicant requested a record of email activity sent to and from Ministry and other public bodies’ email addresses contained in logs residing on BC Government servers. The Ministry refused to disclose the record on the basis that disclosing it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The Ministry also said that it was unreasonable, for the purpose of s. 4(2) of FIPPA to sever information to which s. 22 applies and release the remaining information. The adjudicator found that s. 22 applies to the record in issue. Further, it is unreasonable under s. 4(2) for the Ministry to sever personal information to which s. 22 applies and disclose the remaining information.
F15-62 Nov 18, 2015 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested records about an individual who died in 1989. The VPD withheld all of the re... more
The applicant requested records about an individual who died in 1989. The VPD withheld all of the requested information from responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (s. 22). Specifically, the VPD cited the presumption against disclosing personal information if the information was compiled and is identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation (s. 22(3)(b)). The adjudicator determined that the VPD must refuse to disclose all of the requested information from the responsive records, except for the names and titles of employees who worked on the disputed records, because disclosing this information would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA.
F15-61 Nov 10, 2015 Victoria Police Department A journalist requested records related to the BC Association of Chiefs of Police and the BC Associat... more
A journalist requested records related to the BC Association of Chiefs of Police and the BC Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police. The Victoria Police Department disclosed some records but refused to disclose other records and information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 15, 16 and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”) and s. 182 of the Police Act. The adjudicator found that some records could be withheld because they are outside the scope of FIPPA due to s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA and others because s. 182 of the Police Act applied. The adjudicator also found that some information could be withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (1)(c) and (l) (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). However, VicPD was not authorized to refuse to disclose any of the information it withheld under s. 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations).
F15-60 Nov 4, 2015 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority The applicant is a retired employee of Coast Mountain Bus. He requested records related to a volunta... more
The applicant is a retired employee of Coast Mountain Bus. He requested records related to a voluntary early retirement program. The South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“TransLink”) withheld some of the requested information from responsive records on the basis that it is exempt from disclosure under s. 13 of FIPPA (advice or recommendations), and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that TransLink was authorized by s. 13 and required by s. 22 to withhold some of the information. The adjudicator determined that TransLink must disclose the rest of the information to the applicant. In addition, the adjudicator ordered TransLink to process, under Part 2 of FIPPA, the information that it incorrectly withheld from certain records on the basis that it was duplicated information.
F15-59 Oct 21, 2015 Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training The applicant requested records used to develop communications material to support the economic impa... more
The applicant requested records used to develop communications material to support the economic impacts of the Times of India Film Awards. The Ministry withheld some of the requested information from responsive emails on the basis that several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA applied: Cabinet confidences (s. 12), advice and recommendations (s. 13), harm to the business interests of a third party (s. 21), and unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold some information under ss. 12 and 22, and authorized to withhold other information under s. 13. The Ministry is not required to withhold information under s. 21.
F15-58 Oct 13, 2015 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist asked for the total value of lottery products purchased through PlayNow.com for each B.... more
A journalist asked for the total value of lottery products purchased through PlayNow.com for each B.C. postal code forward sortation area. A forward sortation area is comprised of the first three characters in a postal code. BCLC withheld the requested information on the basis that it believed disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm BCLC’s financial or economic interests, under s. 17 of FIPPA (specifically ss. 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(d)). The applicant said that s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA applies (i.e., disclosure is in the public interest). The adjudicator found that disclosure of the information was not clearly in the public interest, so BCLC was not required to disclose it under s. 25(1)(b). However, the adjudicator ordered BCLC to disclose the information because BCLC had not established that it was authorized to refuse access under ss. 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(d) of FIPPA.
F15-57 Oct 13, 2015 Ministry of Children and Family Development An individual filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act alleg... more
An individual filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act alleging that the Ministry of Children and Family Development had disclosed her personal information and that of her family without her consent. The Commissioner found that the Ministry had disclosed two records that contained the personal information of the complainant and of her family in the course of its review of its handling of the Complainant’s case with the Ministry. The Commissioner also found that this disclosure was authorized by s. 33.2(c) of the Act, as being to employees of the Ministry and being necessary for the duties of those employees. Where disclosure is authorized by s. 33.2(c) the consent of the individual the information is about is not required. Finally, the Commissioner found that the security arrangements made by the Ministry for the conduct of its review met its obligation, pursuant to s. 30 of the Act, to make reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or disposal.
F15-56 Oct 6, 2015 City of New Westminster An applicant requested records related to a building developer’s withdrawal from a partnership with ... more
An applicant requested records related to a building developer’s withdrawal from a partnership with the City of New Westminster. The City disclosed some records, but withheld some information under several exceptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined the City is authorized to withhold meeting minutes and a report to council and attachments under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), but not information from an agenda. The adjudicator also found that s. 13 (advice or recommendations) authorizes the City to withhold a draft communications brief. Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City is not authorized to withhold parts of the agenda and the meeting minutes on the basis that they were non-responsive to the applicant’s request.
F15-55 Sep 30, 2015 Ministry of Justice The applicant requested a copy of the report from the police to the Criminal Justice Branch (“Report... more
The applicant requested a copy of the report from the police to the Criminal Justice Branch (“Report to Crown counsel”) related to his criminal case. The Ministry denied access to the report under s. 15(1)(g) (disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal information related to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion), among other provisions. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(g) applies to the information in the report and that the Ministry exercised its discretion properly in withholding the information.
F15-54 Sep 30, 2015 University of Victoria UVic denied the applicant access to a record of the results of a workplace investigation into allega... more
UVic denied the applicant access to a record of the results of a workplace investigation into allegations against a third party, on the grounds that its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the entire record and confirmed UVic’s decision to deny access to it.
F15-53 Sep 30, 2015 Ministry of Justice An applicant requested a copy of a food services agreement between Compass and the Ministry. Compass... more
An applicant requested a copy of a food services agreement between Compass and the Ministry. Compass objected, on the grounds that disclosure of the agreement could reasonably be expected to harm its business interest. The adjudicator found that the information in the agreement was commercial and financial information of or about Compass but that the information had not been “supplied” to the Ministry. The adjudicator also found that Compass had not shown that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its business interests. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the entire agreement to the applicant.
F15-52 Sep 24, 2015 City of Vancouver The applicant requested all correspondence and minutes naming himself and certain City Of Vancouver ... more
The applicant requested all correspondence and minutes naming himself and certain City Of Vancouver employees relating to the applicant’s role with various Community Centre Associations. The City disclosed some information but withheld some emails under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold all of the information withheld under s. 14 and most of the information withheld under s. 13. The adjudicator also determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose almost all of the information withheld under s. 22.
F15-51 Sep 23, 2015 Architectural Institute of BC The Architectural Institute of BC’s (“AIBC”) lawyer investigated a complaint about the applicant. AI... more
The Architectural Institute of BC’s (“AIBC”) lawyer investigated a complaint about the applicant. AIBC refused to disclose a copy of the lawyer’s investigation report to the applicant, under s. 13 (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested that the parties’ dispute over the matter proceed to inquiry. AIBC requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not conduct an inquiry. The adjudicator granted AIBC’s request because it was plain and obvious that the report was protected by solicitor client privilege and could be withheld under s. 14 of FIPPA.
F15-50 Sep 23, 2015 City of Williams Lake The applicant requested correspondence about himself from the City of Williams Lake. The City disclo... more
The applicant requested correspondence about himself from the City of Williams Lake. The City disclosed most of the responsive information except for information that identified a third party who had written a series of emails about the applicant to the City. The information was withheld on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The City was required to continue withhold the identifying information under s. 22.
F15-49 Sep 9, 2015 University of British Columbia UBC refused access to the rubric, criteria and scoring instructions it uses to assess the personal p... more
UBC refused access to the rubric, criteria and scoring instructions it uses to assess the personal profiles of prospective students under ss. 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(e) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 3(1)(d) and (e) did not apply, and the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that the information in dispute was not advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that disclosure could not reasonably be expected to harm UBC’s financial or economic interests under s. 17. UBC was ordered to disclose the requested information.
F15-48 Sep 3, 2015 Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training related to th... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training related to the provincial government’s decision to fund the Times of India Film Awards. The Ministry withheld some information in the responsive records, including information from a contract, citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold some information under s. 12 because disclosing it would reveal the substance of Treasury Board deliberations, but that the remaining information must be disclosed because s. 12 does not apply.
F15-47 Sep 3, 2015 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance related to the provincial government’s ... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance related to the provincial government’s decision to fund the Times of India Film Awards. The Ministry withheld some information in the responsive records, citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold some information under s. 12 because disclosing it would reveal the substance of Treasury Board deliberations. The Ministry must disclose some titles, headings, and basic topic information because s. 12 does not apply.
F15-46 Sep 2, 2015 B.C. Pavilion Corporation The applicant requested records the B.C. Pavilion Corporation (“PavCo”) used to process an earlier r... more
The applicant requested records the B.C. Pavilion Corporation (“PavCo”) used to process an earlier request for records. PavCo withheld some of the requested information on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body (s. 17 of FIPPA), as well as the business interests of a third party (s. 21). PavCo also withheld the name and position title of a PavCo employee on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (s. 22). Further, PavCo refused to disclose some information in the records solely on the basis that the information was non-responsive to the request. The adjudicator determined that PavCo is not authorized or required to refuse to disclose any information under ss. 17, 21 or 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator also required PavCo to process the information it was withholding as non-responsive because it is only authorized or required to withhold this information under Division 2, Part 2 of FIPPA.
F15-45 Sep 2, 2015 B.C. Pavilion Corporation The applicant requested records the B.C. Pavilion Corporation (“PavCo”) used to process an earlier r... more
The applicant requested records the B.C. Pavilion Corporation (“PavCo”) used to process an earlier request for records. PavCo withheld some of the requested information on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body (s. 17 of FIPPA), as well as the business interests of a third party (s. 21). PavCo also withheld the name and position title of a PavCo employee on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (s. 22). Further, PavCo refused to disclose some information in the records solely on the basis that the information was non-responsive to the request. The adjudicator determined that PavCo is not authorized or required to refuse to disclose any information under ss. 17, 21 or 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator also required PavCo to process the information it was withholding as non-responsive because it is only authorized or required to withhold this information under Division 2, Part 2 of FIPPA.
F15-44 Aug 21, 2015 City of Kelowna An applicant requested records relating to City of Kelowna tendering processes for a construction pr... more
An applicant requested records relating to City of Kelowna tendering processes for a construction project at a park. The City disclosed most of the information in the responsive records, but it withheld some information on the basis that it is exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (advice or recommendations), s. 17 (disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of the City) and s. 21 (disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld under s. 13 and that it is required to refuse to disclose some of the information withheld under s. 21. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.
F15-43 Aug 21, 2015 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist requested that the British Columbia Lottery Corporation provide expense reports of a sp... more
A journalist requested that the British Columbia Lottery Corporation provide expense reports of a specified BCLC employee who hosted BCLC customers at music concerts in 2012. BCLC withheld the names of the BCLC customers who were hosted at these music concerts under s. 17 (disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of the public body) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that BCLC is authorized to refuse to disclose the customer names because disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the financial or economic interests of BCLC under s. 17 of FIPPA.
F15-42 Aug 21, 2015 School District 57 (Prince George) The mother of a School District 57 (Prince George) student requested video camera footage that was t... more
The mother of a School District 57 (Prince George) student requested video camera footage that was taken during a 10 day period her son spent in a modified classroom setting. The School District responded by permitting the applicant to access the footage at its office, but it decided that it was required to refuse to disclose to the applicant a copy of the footage containing the personal information of the classroom teacher and youth care worker captured on the video because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 applies to the information about the classroom teacher and youth care worker. Section 22 did not apply to a RCMP officer whose image was also captured in the footage. The adjudicator determined that the applicant, medical professionals and legal professionals were entitled to access to the footage. However, the School District was not required to provide a copy of the footage to the applicant.
F15-41 Aug 21, 2015 Ministry of Health An applicant requested records relating to a program about medical residency positions for internati... more
An applicant requested records relating to a program about medical residency positions for international medical graduates. The Ministry of Health disclosed some information, but withheld most of it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) or s. 14 (legal advice) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld under s. 14, but not the information withheld under s. 13.
F15-40 Aug 21, 2015 British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Two third parties requested a review of a BC Ferry Services Inc. decision to disclose portions of re... more
Two third parties requested a review of a BC Ferry Services Inc. decision to disclose portions of records that are responsive to a request under FIPPA. The records relate to a BC Ferries arrangement with the third parties about a pilot project for two cable ferry routes. The third parties argued that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the corporate third party’s business interests. The adjudicator confirmed BC Ferries’ decision that s. 21 did not apply to the information it had decided to disclose, and ordered BC Ferries to disclose it to the person who had requested the records.
F15-39 Aug 21, 2015 Ministry of Justice An applicant requested records regarding the construction and operation of the Okanagan Correctional... more
An applicant requested records regarding the construction and operation of the Okanagan Correctional Centre. The Ministry of Justice disclosed some records to the applicant, but withheld others in their entirety on the basis that they were exempt from disclosure under FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was required or authorized to withhold most of this information under s. 12 (cabinet confidences), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), s. 17 (disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of the public body), or s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA.
F15-38 Aug 20, 2015 Workers' Compensation Board An applicant requested records relating to a Workers’ Compensation Board complaint filed by his adul... more
An applicant requested records relating to a Workers’ Compensation Board complaint filed by his adult daughter. WorkSafeBC disclosed some information to the applicant, but it withheld other information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that WorkSafeBC is required or authorized to refuse to disclose the withheld information under ss. 13 and 22 of FIPPA.
F15-37 Aug 19, 2015 City of Vancouver An applicant requested records about City of Vancouver Bid Committee meetings. The Bid Committee mak... more
An applicant requested records about City of Vancouver Bid Committee meetings. The Bid Committee makes decisions regarding the procurement of goods and services for the City. In response to the applicant’s request, the City identified reports that were prepared by City staff for the Bid Committee. It disclosed portions of these reports, but withheld some information under ss. 13, 16, 17 and 21 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized to refuse to disclose nearly all of the information withheld under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), but that it must disclose the remaining information.
F15-36 Aug 13, 2015 Vancouver Island Health Authority The applicant requested a copy of her deceased mother’s medical records. VIHA refused to disclose th... more
The applicant requested a copy of her deceased mother’s medical records. VIHA refused to disclose the records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to act on behalf of her deceased mother and because it considered disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not authorized to act on behalf of her deceased mother and that disclosure of the medical records would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F15-35 Aug 13, 2015 City of Surrey The applicant requested records detailing payments made by the City of Surrey to the Washington Spea... more
The applicant requested records detailing payments made by the City of Surrey to the Washington Speakers Bureau. The City withheld payment amounts from a chart, invoices and requisition forms on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the business interests of a third party (s. 21). The Adjudicator determined that s. 21(1) did not apply to any of the information in dispute, and the City must disclose it. The Adjudicator further determined that s. 22(1) did not require the City to withhold any of the information in dispute.
F15-34 Aug 13, 2015 City of Surrey The applicant requested records detailing payments made by the City of Surrey to the London Speakers... more
The applicant requested records detailing payments made by the City of Surrey to the London Speakers Bureau. The City withheld payment amounts from a chart, invoices, and a schedule of fees and expenses on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the business interests of a third party (s. 21). The Adjudicator determined that s. 21(1) did not apply to any of the information in dispute, and the City must disclose it. The Adjudicator further determined that s. 22(1) did not require the City to withhold any of the information in dispute.
F15-33 Aug 12, 2015 City of Vancouver A former City of Vancouver employee requested all correspondence containing his name that was author... more
A former City of Vancouver employee requested all correspondence containing his name that was authored in certain time periods by any of eleven City employees. The City disclosed most of the correspondence but withheld some responsive information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold some information under s. 13 while finding that other information must be disclosed. The adjudicator also determined that the City was required to refuse most of the information withheld under s. 22, but that some of the information was contact information so must be disclosed.
F15-32 Aug 12, 2015 City of Vancouver A journalist requested a copy of the City Manager’s Agenda for a period spanning approximately three... more
A journalist requested a copy of the City Manager’s Agenda for a period spanning approximately three months. The City of Vancouver disclosed most of the Agenda, but withheld small excerpts on the basis that disclosure would harm the security of a communications system (s. 15(1)(l)) or be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that apart from telephone numbers that comprised contact information, the withheld information in the Agenda was appropriately withheld by the City.
F15-31 Jul 6, 2015 City of Richmond A former employee requested that the City of Richmond disclose the total amount paid to settle dispu... more
A former employee requested that the City of Richmond disclose the total amount paid to settle disputes with two former employees, as well as the total legal fees incurred for those matters. The City withheld the total amount paid to settle disputes under ss. 14 and 17 of FIPPA, and the legal fee information under ss.14, 17 and 22. The adjudicator determined that none of the exceptions applied and ordered the information disclosed.
F15-30 Jul 2, 2015 Delta Police Department The applicant requested his personal information from records contained in a Delta Police Department... more
The applicant requested his personal information from records contained in a Delta Police Department (“DPD”) motor vehicle collision investigation (“collision investigation”) file and two DPD files about police officer behaviour related to the collision investigation. The DPD withheld some of the collision investigation records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. The DPD withheld almost all of the behaviour records on the basis they were outside the scope of FIPPA due to ss. 66.1 and/or 182 of the Police Act. The adjudicator determined that a withheld record arising from the applicant’s complaint about DPD officer behaviour was outside the scope of FIPPA because the record arose out of and was created after an internal discipline complaint under Part 9 of the Police Act. For the records related to a complaint about the applicant, some information on one page is outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 182 of the Police Act. The DPD must process under FIPPA the remaining information withheld as outside the scope of FIPPA because it does not disclose or relate to a Police Act complaint or investigation or was created before a Police Act investigation began. The adjudicator also determined that s. 22 did not apply to the applicant’s personal information withheld under that provision.
F15-29 Jun 30, 2015 Langara College An applicant requested records from Langara College relating to complaints made against him as well ... more
An applicant requested records from Langara College relating to complaints made against him as well as complaints he had made. The College disclosed most of the information but withheld some identifying information of complainants and witnesses and some other personal information as relating to law enforcement investigations under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 of FIPPA applied to some of the withheld information in dispute. However, the adjudicator found that it was not unreasonable to disclose information that the applicant already knew.
F15-28 Jun 30, 2015 Provincial Health Services Authority An applicant requested BC Emergency Health Services (“BCEHS”) provide her with a transcript, includi... more
An applicant requested BC Emergency Health Services (“BCEHS”) provide her with a transcript, including the name and phone number of an individual who called 911 from the scene of an accident in which the applicant was seriously injured. BCEHS provided the applicant with a transcript of the call, but withheld personal information including the caller’s name and phone number because it believed disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy (s. 22 of FIPPA). The applicant was not satisfied with BCEHS’ response and asked the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. BCEHS requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not hold an inquiry. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that disclosure of the third party’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22; therefore, BCEHS’s request that an inquiry not be held was denied.
F15-27 Jun 25, 2015 Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations The applicant requested records relating to a 2012 landslide near his home that originated at a logg... more
The applicant requested records relating to a 2012 landslide near his home that originated at a logging site. The issue was whether the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations was required to disclose to the applicant a report regarding the slide under s. 25 of FIPPA. Section 25 requires public bodies to, without delay, disclose information that is about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or a group of people, or because disclosure is otherwise clearly in the public interest. The adjudicator determined that s. 25 does not apply to the information in the report.
F15-26 Jun 18, 2015 Ministry of Environment The applicant requested the Ministry provide records related to his landfill operation. The Ministry... more
The applicant requested the Ministry provide records related to his landfill operation. The Ministry refused to disclose some information under s. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 3(1)(h) did not apply and the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that most of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under ss. 15(1)(d) and (l), was appropriately withheld under those exceptions. The Ministry also severed information from the records on the basis that the information was “not responsive” to the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that FIPPA does not authorize refusing to disclose information on that basis.
F15-25 Jun 18, 2015 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association requested that ICBC provide records related to... more
The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association requested that ICBC provide records related to the data sharing and privacy aspects of combining the BC driver’s licence with the BC Services Card. ICBC refused to disclose some of the information in the responsive records under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (legal advice) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that, with a few exceptions, most of information was properly withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator determined that disclosure of the withheld personal information would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, so ICBC was not authorized to withhold it under s. 22. ICBC also refused to disclose parts of the records on the basis that they were “not responsive” or outside the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that ICBC is not authorized to refuse to disclose the information on that basis, and the only part of a responsive record that may be withheld is that which is covered by an exception under Part 2 of FIPPA.
F15-24 Jun 18, 2015 Ministry of Children and Family Development In Order F14-32 it was held that the Ministry was not authorized to sever and withhold portions of r... more
In Order F14-32 it was held that the Ministry was not authorized to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were “out of scope of request”. The Ministry sought a reconsideration of Order F14-32 on that issue. FIPPA does not authorize the Ministry to withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of the applicant’s request. It is ordered to consider the request as it relates to those portions and disclose them except with respect to information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.
F15-23 Jun 18, 2015 Vancouver Island Health Authority In Order F14-27 it was held that VIHA could not sever and withhold portions of responsive records on... more
In Order F14-27 it was held that VIHA could not sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were ‘outside the scope’ of the applicant’s request. A reconsideration was sought and this order decides that issue. FIPPA does not authorize a public body to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of an applicant’s request. VIHA is ordered to consider the applicant’s request as it relates to those portions and disclose them with the exception of any information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.
F15-22 Jun 3, 2015 Ministry of Justice An applicant requested a copy of the Ministry of Justice’s Corrections Branch adult custody policy m... more
An applicant requested a copy of the Ministry of Justice’s Corrections Branch adult custody policy manual. The Ministry disclosed most of the manual but withheld some information about the control tools staff members use, how often inmates are checked, and how staff members respond to emergencies, under ss. 15(1)(c),(f),(j),(k) and (l) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (harm to law enforcement). The adjudicator determined that, except for a small amount of information related to preserving evidence, the designation of suicidal inmates, some of the methods and technology used to search visitors and inmates, and where control tools are located, the Ministry’s evidence does not establish that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the harms the Ministry alleged, therefore the Ministry must disclose most of the information it withheld.
F15-21 May 7, 2015 Corporation of the District of Oak Bay An applicant requested the Corporation of the District of Oak Bay (“Oak Bay”) provide him with recor... more
An applicant requested the Corporation of the District of Oak Bay (“Oak Bay”) provide him with records related to a permit to renovate his home. Oak Bay provided the applicant with records responsive to his request, but withheld names, house numbers and signatures from a petition because it believed disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy (s. 22 of FIPPA). The applicant was not satisfied with Oak Bay’s response and asked the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. Oak Bay requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not hold an inquiry. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that disclosure of the petitioners’ personal information would be an invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22; therefore, Oak Bay’s request that an inquiry not be held was denied.
P15-01 Apr 14, 2015 Park Royal Medical Clinic A complainant alleged that a named employee of the Park Royal Medical Clinic disclosed information i... more
A complainant alleged that a named employee of the Park Royal Medical Clinic disclosed information in a patient’s records contrary to PIPA. The complainant also alleged that the Clinic’s complaint investigation did not satisfy the requirements for dealing with complaints in s. 5 of PIPA and that the Clinic did not have reasonable security arrangements to protect the patient’s personal information in its custody as required by s. 34 of PIPA. The complainant’s allegation that the Clinic’s employee made an unauthorized disclosure of the patient’s information was not supported by the evidence. However the adjudicator found the Clinic did not have a complaint process that complied with s. 5 of PIPA. The Clinic also did not have reasonable security arrangements to protect the patient’s personal information in its custody as required by s. 34 of PIPA. The Clinic was ordered to comply with ss. 5 and 34 of PIPA.
F15-19 Apr 14, 2015 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested the combined amount of taxes remitted in 2012 under the Insurance Premium Ta... more
The applicant requested the combined amount of taxes remitted in 2012 under the Insurance Premium Tax Act by insurance companies that provide title insurance in British Columbia. The Ministry of Finance withheld the information on the basis that it would disclose information that was obtained on a tax return or gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability or collecting tax (s. 21(2) of FIPPA). The adjudicator found that disclosure of the requested information is not prohibited by s. 21(2) of FIPPA and ordered the Ministry to disclose it.
F15-18 Apr 2, 2015 City of Kelowna An applicant requested the City of Kelowna (the “City”) provide information related to a bylaw compl... more
An applicant requested the City of Kelowna (the “City”) provide information related to a bylaw complaint. The applicant was not satisfied with the City’s response and asked the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. The City requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not hold an inquiry. The adjudicator granted the City’s request because it was plain and obvious that disclosure of the requested information would reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement information so s. 15(1)(d) of FIPPA applied.
F15-17 Mar 26, 2015 City of Rossland The applicant requested year-end pay statements of a former and current CAO of the City of Rossland.... more
The applicant requested year-end pay statements of a former and current CAO of the City of Rossland. The City withheld the pay statements on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information in the pay statements because it was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, including information about remuneration under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City must continue to withhold some information that under s. 22(3) is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy if disclosed.
F15-16 Mar 25, 2015 Private Career Training Institutions Agency A journalist requested a list of Private Career Training Institutions Agency’s suppliers and contrac... more
A journalist requested a list of Private Career Training Institutions Agency’s suppliers and contractors that were paid more than $10,000 in either of two fiscal years, as well as the amounts of those payments. The Agency disclosed most of the information, but withheld the identity and payment amount information for its legal counsel on the basis that the information was subject to solicitor client privilege (s. 14 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that solicitor client privilege did not apply and required the Agency to disclose the withheld information.
F15-15 Mar 24, 2015 Ministry of Justice The applicant requested details of financial transactions between the Ministry and the law firm Bord... more
The applicant requested details of financial transactions between the Ministry and the law firm Borden Ladner Gervais and between the Ministry and a specific lawyer in that firm. The requested information was contained in legal retainer agreements, requests to retain outside legal counsel, legal invoices and associated records. The Ministry refused to disclose the requested information under s. 14 of FIPPA on the grounds that it was subject to solicitor client privilege. The adjudicator found that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose the requested information under s. 14.
F15-14 Mar 19, 2015 BC Coroners Service The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation into the death of a named ... more
The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
F15-13 Mar 18, 2015 Ministry of Health The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to the regulation of raw milk i... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to the regulation of raw milk in BC. The Ministry disclosed some records to the applicant. The Ministry withheld some records under ss.13 (policy advice), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22 (third party personal information) of FIPPA and some others on the basis that they are outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information withheld under s. 3(1)(j) and some of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22. The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 14.
F15-12 Mar 18, 2015 Ministry of Justice The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation i... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation involving him that resulted in his employment being terminated. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others, citing ss. 13, 14, 15, and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information withheld under ss. 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 15(1)(l).The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation involving him that resulted in his employment being terminated. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others, citing ss. 13, 14, 15, and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information withheld under ss. 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 15(1)(l).
F15-11 Mar 10, 2015 Fraser Health Authority An applicant requested a Fraser Health Authority (“FHA”) investigation file about a workplace compla... more
An applicant requested a Fraser Health Authority (“FHA”) investigation file about a workplace complaint she made to FHA. FHA disclosed nearly all of the records, but withheld part of one page of notes on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that FHA was required to refuse to disclose the withheld information under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F15-10 Mar 9, 2015 BC Pavilion Corporation An applicant requested a copy of the agreement between PavCo and the BC Lions for the use of BC Plac... more
An applicant requested a copy of the agreement between PavCo and the BC Lions for the use of BC Place Stadium. The BC Lions disagreed with PavCo’s decision that s. 21 of FIPPA (harm to third party business interests) did not apply to the record. The adjudicator concluded that s. 21(1) did not apply to the record as the BC Lions had not “supplied” the information in dispute within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b). The adjudicator ordered PavCo to disclose all of the Agreement to the applicant.
F15-09 Feb 26, 2015 Capital Regional District The applicant requested access to legal advice received by the Capital Regional District (“CRD”) reg... more
The applicant requested access to legal advice received by the Capital Regional District (“CRD”) regarding a new zoning bylaw proposed by the Township of Esquimalt. The adjudicator found that the CRD was authorized to refuse to disclose the legal advice under s. 14 of FIPPA because it is subject to solicitor client privilege and the privilege had not been waived.
F15-08 Feb 26, 2015 BC Securities Commission The applicant requested information regarding BCSC’s communications with government and private orga... more
The applicant requested information regarding BCSC’s communications with government and private organizations regarding the applicant and four named companies. BCSC refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege and s. 14 of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that BCSC had proven that litigation privilege applied to some of the records and they could be withheld under s. 14. However, neither litigation privilege nor legal advice privilege applied to the rest of the records, so they could not be withheld under s. 14.
F15-07 Feb 19, 2015 British Columbia Utilities Commission In the course of investigating consumers’ complaints about Active Energy, BCUC commissioned an inves... more
In the course of investigating consumers’ complaints about Active Energy, BCUC commissioned an investigative report from Consumer Protection BC. During the process, BCUC decided the report should be held in confidence and later, having heard submissions, decided to expunge it from the record. BCUC’s enforcement action later resulted in a settlement agreement with Active Energy. The applicant requested access to the report and BCUC decided to disclose it. For reasons given in Order F15-06, Active Energy’s appeal is allowed, as s. 61(2)(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the record from FIPPA’s application.
F15-06 Feb 19, 2015 British Columbia Utilities Commission In the course of investigating consumers’ complaints about Active Energy, BCUC commissioned an inves... more
In the course of investigating consumers’ complaints about Active Energy, BCUC commissioned an investigative report from Consumer Protection BC. During the process, BCUC decided the report should be held in confidence and later, having heard submissions, decided to expunge it from the record. BCUC’s enforcement action later resulted in a settlement agreement with Active Energy. The applicant requested access to the report and BCUC decided to disclose it. Active Energy’s appeal is allowed, as s. 61(2)(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the record from FIPPA’s application.
F15-05 Feb 18, 2015 West Vancouver Police Department A former West Vancouver Police Department police officer requested records relating to an internal W... more
A former West Vancouver Police Department police officer requested records relating to an internal WVPD investigation that led to the termination of his employment. WVPD denied access to some of the records on the basis that they were outside the scope of FIPPA due to s. 182 of the Police Act. The adjudicator determined that s. 182 of the Police Act did not apply because the investigation into the applicant was not initiated under Part 11 of the Police Act. The adjudicator therefore found that the records were within the scope of FIPPA and ordered WVPD to process the applicant’s request.
F15-04 Jan 27, 2015 Interior Health Authority The applicant requested agreements for ultrasound services between the Interior Health Authority and... more
The applicant requested agreements for ultrasound services between the Interior Health Authority and Canadian Ultrasound Solutions. The adjudicator found that disclosure of the agreements would not cause harm to Canadian Ultrasound Solutions and ordered the Interior Health Authority to disclose the agreements to the applicant.
F15-03 Jan 13, 2015 Transportation Investment Corporation A journalist requested records relating to tolling operations services for the Port Mann Bridge. Tra... more
A journalist requested records relating to tolling operations services for the Port Mann Bridge. Transportation Investment Corporation released most of the responsive information, but withheld portions of one contract on the basis that disclosure would harm the security of TI Corp’s computer network and firewall (s. 15(1)(l)), harm the business interests of a third party (s. 21), or be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that TI Corp was authorized to withhold all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(l). It was also required to withhold some of the information withheld under s. 21 and all of the information withheld under s. 22.
F15-02 Jan 8, 2015 B.C. Coroners Service A journalist requested full details of all deaths investigated by the Coroner over a 16 year period.... more
A journalist requested full details of all deaths investigated by the Coroner over a 16 year period. He requested the information in one electronic record, or alternatively as several electronic records that could be linked with a unique identifier. The requested records do not exist in either format, and the Coroner submitted that it was not obliged to create the records under s. 6(2) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that that the Coroner was not obliged to create a single electronic record because doing so would unreasonably interfere with the Coroner’s operations (s. 6(2)(b)). The adjudicator determined that creating several electronic records (one for each table in the database) would not unreasonably interfere with the Coroner’s operations. However, the adjudicator concluded those records could not reasonably be severed (s. 4(2) of FIPPA), so the Coroner was not obliged to create them.
F15-01 Jan 8, 2015 B.C. Coroners Service An applicant requested a record confirming whether a post-mortem or toxicology examination was condu... more
An applicant requested a record confirming whether a post-mortem or toxicology examination was conducted in relation to the death of a specified individual. The B.C. Coroners Service refused to confirm or deny the existence of a responsive record pursuant to s. 8(2) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that confirming or denying the existence of certain types of records – or confirming that no responsive records exist – would convey personal information of the deceased. The adjudicator determined that the Coroner is authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of these types of records because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased's personal privacy (s. 8(2)(b)). Section 8(2)(b) did not apply to types of records that would not convey personal information. The adjudicator also determined that disclosure of the mere existence or non-existence of a requested record needs to convey information described in s. 15 of FIPPA (information harmful to law enforcement) for s. 8(2)(a) to apply. Section 8(2)(a) did not apply to the remaining records.
F14-58 Dec 29, 2014 Ministry of Technology, Innovation & Citizens' Services The NDP Caucus requested records related to DDB Canada’s services on the HST information campaign. T... more
The NDP Caucus requested records related to DDB Canada’s services on the HST information campaign. The Ministry proposed to disclose most of the information, despite DDB’s argument that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm DDB’s business interests and those of its service providers. The adjudicator found that DDB had not shown how such harm could occur and ordered the Ministry to disclose the information.
F14-57 Dec 23, 2014 Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner A journalist requested administrative records about himself that were generated or received by the O... more
A journalist requested administrative records about himself that were generated or received by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner within a specified time period. The OPCC withheld some information in a responsive record that was related to the processing of a previous access request the journalist had made to the OPCC, on the basis that disclosure of the information would reveal policy advice or recommendations (s. 13 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the OPCC was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld under s. 13.
F14-56 Dec 23, 2014 Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development relate... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development related to the government’s decision to contribute funding towards a National Soccer Development Centre at UBC. The Ministry withheld some information in responsive records stating that it is required to refuse to disclose the information, citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA and harm to third party business interests under s. 21 of FIPPA. The Ministry also withheld a small amount of other information, stating that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to refuse to disclose some information under s. 12 because it would reveal the substance of Treasury Board deliberations, either directly or by inference. Section 12 does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose subject headings. Section 21 does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose parts of a business case report. Further, s. 22 does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose employment history information about a Ministry employee.
F14-55 Dec 23, 2014 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance related to the government’s decision to... more
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance related to the government’s decision to contribute funding towards a National Soccer Development Centre at UBC. The Ministry withheld some information, citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA and harm to third party business interests under s. 21 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to refuse to disclose some information under s. 12 because it would reveal the substance of Treasury Board deliberations, either directly or by inference. Section 12 does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose subject headings. Section 21 does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose parts of a business case report.
F14-54 Dec 22, 2014 City of Victoria The City had applied to the Commissioner for authority under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and... more
The City had applied to the Commissioner for authority under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant, one of the parties against whom s. 43 had been sought, requested access to City records relating to that application. The City disclosed some records but withheld others. Section 14 authorizes the City to withhold information that it withheld on the basis of privilege.
F14-53 Dec 18, 2014 British Columbia Lottery Corporation The respondent asked the British Columbia Lottery Corporation for copies of BCLC staff invoices and ... more
The respondent asked the British Columbia Lottery Corporation for copies of BCLC staff invoices and receipts for client promotions and hospitality. BCLC refused to disclose players’ names and ID numbers under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The respondent was not satisfied with this response and asked that this matter proceed to inquiry. BCLC requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 to not hold an inquiry. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that disclosure of the players’ personal information would be an invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22; therefore, BCLC’s request that an inquiry not be held is denied.
F14-52 Dec 18, 2014 Thompson Rivers University A professor at Thompson Rivers University requested records of the committee that considered his app... more
A professor at Thompson Rivers University requested records of the committee that considered his application for a promotion. The adjudicator found that all of the records were assembled for and integral to the committee’s deliberations, that they consisted of advice or recommendations and that s. 13(1) therefore applied to them.
F14-51 Dec 17, 2014 Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development The applicant requested records related to the Province’s decision to contribute funding to Whistler... more
The applicant requested records related to the Province’s decision to contribute funding to Whistler Sports Legacies. The Ministry withheld some information from the responsive records, citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was required to refuse to disclose most of the information in dispute under s. 12(1) because it would reveal the substance of Treasury Board deliberations or allow someone to draw accurate inferences about the substance of those deliberations. However, the adjudicator ordered some of the information to be disclosed because it was background explanation to the Treasury Board for its consideration in making decisions which have been implemented and made public, so s. 12(2)(c) applied.
F14-58 Dec 16, 2014 City of New Westminster The applicant requested financial records related to a building complex. During mediation and the in... more
The applicant requested financial records related to a building complex. During mediation and the inquiry process, the City disclosed all the information in dispute except for the proposed price for an air space parcel required to build an office tower. The City withheld this information under ss. 17(1)(b) and (f) of FIPPA on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of the City. The proposed price was intended for a private partner who then withdrew from the project. The adjudicator determined that the City was not authorized to continue to withhold the proposed price. The evidence did not satisfy the adjudicator that the proposed price still had monetary value or that disclosing it could reasonably be expected to harm the City’s negotiating position with respect to the sale of the air space parcel.
F14-49 Dec 16, 2014 BC Pavilion Corporation An applicant requested contracts related to soccer events held at BC Place Stadium. The BC Pavilion ... more
An applicant requested contracts related to soccer events held at BC Place Stadium. The BC Pavilion Corporation located a contract with the Canadian Soccer Association for the CONCACAF Women’s Olympic Qualifying event. It withheld the amount of insurance coverage the Association agreed to obtain, the number of complimentary tickets that PavCo and the Association could use, and the daily rental fee the Association agreed to pay for the use of BC Place. The adjudicator determined that disclosure of the withheld information would not be harmful to the financial or economic interests of PavCo or to the government of British Columbia under s. 17(1) and 17(1)(f) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered PavCo to disclose the information.
F14-48 Nov 26, 2014 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority The applicant requested records from the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“Tra... more
The applicant requested records from the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“Translink”) for costs he said Translink incurred investigating a workplace dispute and responding to a human rights complaint. In response to the applicant's request, Translink advised the applicant that it was unable to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records on the basis that disclosure of the existence of the requested information would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy (s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that Translink was authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records.
P14-03 Nov 17, 2014 Canadian Forest Products Ltd. The applicant requested information from Canadian Forest Products Ltd. in relation to a workplace in... more
The applicant requested information from Canadian Forest Products Ltd. in relation to a workplace investigation. Canfor withheld portions of an investigation report under ss. 23(4)(c) and (d) of PIPA. The adjudicator determined that Canfor was required to withhold all of the withheld information under s. 23(4)(c) because disclosure would reveal personal information about one or more individuals other than the applicant.
F14-47 Nov 10, 2014 Delta Police Department The applicant requested records relating to a Delta Police Department investigation of a motor vehic... more
The applicant requested records relating to a Delta Police Department investigation of a motor vehicle collision she was involved in. The DPD released some information to the applicant, but withheld some on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. After considering all the relevant factors the adjudicator ordered the DPD to disclose the applicant’s personal information in the records because disclosing it would not be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F14-46 Nov 4, 2014 University of British Columbia The applicant requested access to University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board records relat... more
The applicant requested access to University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board records related to clinical trials. The adjudicator determined that the responsive records are outside the scope of FIPPA because the records contain research information of UBC researchers under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA.
F14-45 Nov 4, 2014 Ministry of Health The applicant requested access to records related to data sharing and research agreements between th... more
The applicant requested access to records related to data sharing and research agreements between the Ministry of Health and four individuals, including information about delays or impediments to accessing data for research purposes. The Ministry refused to disclose some information in the responsive records under ss. 13, 15(1)(a), 15(1)(l) and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). The Ministry established that disclosure of some of the information at issue could reasonably be expected to harm a computer system, so could be withheld under s. 15(1)(l). However, the Ministry did not prove that disclosure would be harmful to law enforcement, so it was not authorized to refuse to disclose information under s. 15(1)(a). Nor did the Ministry establish that it was authorized under s. 13 to withhold policy advice or recommendations because that information had already been disclosed elsewhere in the records. Finally, the adjudicator ordered disclosure of most of the information that was withheld under s. 22(1) because disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy.
F14-44 Oct 3, 2014 Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal The applicant, on behalf of his adult daughter, requested access to records related to the daughter’... more
The applicant, on behalf of his adult daughter, requested access to records related to the daughter’s claims and appeals before WCAT. WCAT refused to disclose some of the requested information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA because they were communications and draft decisions of individuals acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, so s. 3(1)(b) applied. Further, WCAT was authorized under s. 13(1) to refuse disclosure of some of the information contained in the records because it was advice or recommendations developed by or for WCAT. The adjudicator also found that WCAT was required to continue to refuse to disclose all of the personal information withheld under s. 22(1).
F14-43 Sep 25, 2014 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority The applicant requested access to his deceased father’s health records from Vancouver Coastal Health... more
The applicant requested access to his deceased father’s health records from Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. VCHA withheld the responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that VCHA was required to withhold all of the responsive records, except one, under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F14-42 Sep 24, 2014 BC Housing The applicant, a journalist, sought purchasing card expense receipts of BC Housing employees. BC Ho... more
The applicant, a journalist, sought purchasing card expense receipts of BC Housing employees. BC Housing provided the applicant with a fee estimate. The applicant asked BC Housing to waive the fee estimate since in his opinion the records he was requesting were in the public interest. BC Housing denied his request for a public interest fee waiver. The Adjudicator determined that a portion of the requested records relate to a matter of public interest and their dissemination through articles published by the applicant would yield a public benefit. A partial fee waiver is warranted in this case.
F14-41 Sep 24, 2014 Ministry of Finance(BC Public Service Agency) The applicant requested records about a named employee of the BC public service. The request was res... more
The applicant requested records about a named employee of the BC public service. The request was responded to by the BC Public Service Agency, part of the Ministry of Finance, which withheld the responsive records from the employee’s personnel file on the basis disclosure was an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information about the named employee’s position, functions and remuneration because it would not be an unreasonable invasion of the employee’s privacy under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry must continue to withhold the remaining information because there is a presumption that disclosure of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of the named employee’s privacy under s. 22(3) and the presumption was not rebutted by any factors, including those in s. 22(2) of FIPPA.
F14-40 Sep 18, 2014 British Columbia Pavilion Corp The applicant requested records about the new roof at BC Place Stadium. PavCo withheld some of the i... more
The applicant requested records about the new roof at BC Place Stadium. PavCo withheld some of the information in responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body (s. 17 of FIPPA) and that disclosure would be harmful to the business interests of a third party (s. 21). The adjudicator determined that PavCo was not authorized to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 17 and that it was not required to refuse to disclose any of the information it withheld under s. 21. The adjudicator also determined that s. 25 applied to some of the information PavCo withheld under s. 21 because disclosure is clearly in the public interest and ordered PavCo to disclose that information forthwith.
F14-39 Sep 18, 2014 Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations The applicant requested records relating to the water flow of a creek and tributaries for the period... more
The applicant requested records relating to the water flow of a creek and tributaries for the period from 1965 to 1996. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations released most of the responsive records, but withheld information that would identify individuals in relation to water use and water use complaints. The information was withheld on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 does not apply to most of the withheld information given the context and content of the information, and ordered the Ministry to disclose it. However, the adjudicator determined that s. 22 applies to a small amount of information, and ordered the Ministry to withhold it under s. 22
F14-38 Sep 17, 2014 City of Coquitlam An applicant requested records from the City of Coquitlam regarding bylaw infraction complaints abou... more
An applicant requested records from the City of Coquitlam regarding bylaw infraction complaints about a property occupied by the applicant. The City disclosed most of the information but withheld complainant identity information and some other information under ss. 12(3)(a), 13, 14, 15(1)(d) and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 14 or 22 of FIPPA applied to nearly all of the withheld information in dispute. While s. 22 did not apply to a small amount of information withheld under s. 22, it was not necessary to consider the application of ss. 12, 13 or 15 to the records because all of the information withheld under those sections falls under ss. 14 or 22.
F14-37 Sep 12, 2014 City of Vancouver The applicant requested information relating to the Burrard Street Bridge. The City released some ro... more
The applicant requested information relating to the Burrard Street Bridge. The City released some routine inspection records but withheld portions of eleven engineering reports about different aspects of the bridge, citing ss. 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator ordered the records disclosed because none of the exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA applied.
F14-36 Sep 8, 2014 City of Vancouver The City of Vancouver awarded a contract for pay-by-phone parking services following a request for p... more
The City of Vancouver awarded a contract for pay-by-phone parking services following a request for proposals. The applicant requested a list of RFP proponents, including their identities and the value of each their proposals. The City created a record in response but withheld some information related to the value of each proposal and information that disclosed the term of the previous pay-by-phone parking services contract it awarded because it believed disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body (s. 17(1)(d) and (f) of FIPPA) and harmful to the business interests of a third party (s. 21(1) of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that these sections do not apply and ordered the City to disclose the information.
F14-35 Sep 8, 2014 Ministry of Lands, Forests and Natural Resource Operations The applicant requested records related to the removal of a dam, including its environmental impacts... more
The applicant requested records related to the removal of a dam, including its environmental impacts on a nearby lake. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations disclosed most of the records, but withheld two email chains on the basis that they were subject to solicitor client privilege (s. 14 of FIPPA). The applicant alleges that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of this information on the basis that it is about a risk of significant harm to the environment or that disclosure is clearly in the public interest. The adjudicator found that s. 25 does not apply and the Ministry was authorized to withhold the records because they are subject to solicitor client privilege.
F14-34 Sep 8, 2014 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The applicant requested information from ICBC relating to a claim she made concerning a motor vehicl... more
The applicant requested information from ICBC relating to a claim she made concerning a motor vehicle accident. ICBC released some information but withheld other information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. ICBC is authorized to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 14 of FIPPA because it is subject to solicitor-client privilege. ICBC is required to withhold some information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA because releasing the information would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some information does not need to be disclosed because it is outside of the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c) of the Act. The remaining information must be disclosed.
F14-33 Sep 3, 2014 Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services The applicant requested records related to the processing of a previous request for records. The Min... more
The applicant requested records related to the processing of a previous request for records. The Ministry released 33 pages of records but withheld a further 10 pages on the basis they were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized under s. 14 of FIPPA to withhold the 10 pages of records.
F14-32 Sep 3, 2014 The Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicant requested information and details regarding the care and cause of death of her daughte... more
The applicant requested information and details regarding the care and cause of death of her daughter, who passed away while in foster care 34 years ago. The Ministry of Children and Family Development withheld information on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 did not apply in the circumstances, so the Ministry was required to disclose the responsive records. The adjudicator also ordered the Ministry to process the applicant’s request for the information in responsive records that the Ministry had marked out of scope.
F14-31 Aug 28, 2014 City of Vancouver A journalist requested records related to the City of Vancouver’s closed circuit television system. ... more
A journalist requested records related to the City of Vancouver’s closed circuit television system. The City refused to disclose some of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and other information under s. 14 (legal advice). However, the adjudicator found that the City had not established that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the harms in s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 17 (harm to the City’s financial or economic interests) or s. 19 (harm to public safety). In addition, the adjudicator ordered the City to process, under Part 2, Division 2 of FIPPA, the information that it incorrectly withheld from the records as being not responsive, repeats and examples.
F14-30 Aug 21, 2014 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia An applicant, a lawyer, sought records relating to court applications by ICBC for personal costs aga... more
An applicant, a lawyer, sought records relating to court applications by ICBC for personal costs against him. The personal costs applications arose from a motor vehicle accident claim in which the applicant was counsel. ICBC withheld the records under s. 13 and all of the records save one page under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that all of the information withheld under s. 14 as subject to solicitor-client privilege could be withheld. ICBC was required to disclose the information it withheld in the remaining page of the records because it did not contain advice or recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA.
F14-29 Jul 31, 2014 Resort Municipality of Whistler The Resort Municipality of Whistler retained a lawyer to investigate the applicant’s workplace haras... more
The Resort Municipality of Whistler retained a lawyer to investigate the applicant’s workplace harassment complaint. The applicant requested a copy of the report the lawyer produced and Whistler withheld it under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the report is privileged and authorized Whistler to withhold it under s. 14.
F14-28 Jul 30, 2014 Vancouver Island Health Authority Compass Group requested a review of Vancouver Island Health Authority’s decision to disclose its con... more
Compass Group requested a review of Vancouver Island Health Authority’s decision to disclose its contracts with VIHA to the applicant Hospital Employees’ Union. Compass argued disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its business interests. The adjudicator determined that the information in the contract was not supplied in confidence within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b) of FIPPA, and VIHA was ordered to disclose the contracts.
F14-27 Jul 28, 2014 Vancouver Island Health Authority The applicant requested information from the Vancouver Island Health Authority relating to VIHA’s de... more
The applicant requested information from the Vancouver Island Health Authority relating to VIHA’s decision-making process concerning fixed site needle exchange services in Greater Victoria. VIHA withheld information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. It also withheld other information on the basis that the information was outside of the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator was not satisfied that s. 12(3)(b) applies. However, he determined that ss. 14 and 22 apply to all of the information withheld under those sections and that s. 13 applies to most of the information withheld under that section. The adjudicator also ordered VIHA to process the applicant’s request for the information it had marked out of scope.
F14-26 Jul 28, 2014 Ministry of Justice The complainant applied for a job with the Ministry and provided the names of references. The Minis... more
The complainant applied for a job with the Ministry and provided the names of references. The Ministry chose to speak to other individuals instead, without advising the complainant or obtaining her consent to do so. The complainant alleged that this was a collection of her personal information contrary to s. 26 and s. 27 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the collection of the personal information in question is not expressly authorized under an Act [s. 26(a)]. Further, while the personal information relates directly to the Ministry’s hiring activities, it is not necessary for that activity [s. 26(c)]. The adjudicator also considered the manner in which the personal information was collected and found that the indirect collection was not authorized under the provisions claimed by the Ministry [ss. 27(1)(a)(iii) and 27(1)(b) in combination with ss. 33.1(1)(c) and (e) and ss. 33.2 (a), (c) and (d)]. The adjudicator orders the Ministry to stop collecting personal information in contravention of FIPPA and to destroy the personal information collected.
F14-25 Jul 25, 2014 Ministry of Justice (Office of the Superintendant of Motor Vehicles) The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, which is part of the Ministry of Justice, withhe... more
The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, which is part of the Ministry of Justice, withheld portions of its Adjudication Procedures Manual that outlines possible grounds for successfully reviewing an impaired driving prohibition. The Ministry submitted that release of the information could reasonably be expected to harm a law enforcement matter under s. 15(1)(a) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the OSMV adjudicator function of reviewing impaired driving prohibitions did not qualify as a “law enforcement” function as defined in FIPPA. The Ministry also did not establish that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to harm the enforcement of the impaired driving prohibition regime for the purposes of s. 15(1)(a) of FIPPA. For these reasons the information must be disclosed.
F14-24 Jul 25, 2014 BC Securities Commission The British Columbia Securities Commission applied for authorization to disregard the respondent’s r... more
The British Columbia Securities Commission applied for authorization to disregard the respondent’s request for records and any similar requests he may make in the future because they are frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the access request and any similar future requests are not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b). The application was dismissed.
F14-23 Jul 23, 2014 Ministry of Justice (Civil Forfeiture Office) The applicant requested all records related to the Ministry’s processing of an earlier request for r... more
The applicant requested all records related to the Ministry’s processing of an earlier request for records regarding the Civil Forfeiture Office. The Ministry refused to disclose to the applicant two names and one work telephone number of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s employees because it believed that disclosure would endanger their lives or physical safety (s. 15(1)(f)) and disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten the employees’ safety or mental or physical health (s.19(1)(a)). The adjudicator found that neither s. 15(1)(f) or s.19(1)(a) authorized refusing to disclose the information in dispute.
F14-22 Jul 23, 2014 Ministry of Justice (Civil Forfeiture Office) The applicant requested information regarding the Civil Forfeiture Office. The Ministry withheld the... more
The applicant requested information regarding the Civil Forfeiture Office. The Ministry withheld the names of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s employees because it believed that disclosure would endanger their lives or physical safety (s. 15(1)(f)) and disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten their safety or mental or physical health (s.19(1)(a)). The adjudicator found that neither s. 15(1)(f) nor s. 19(1)(a) authorized refusing to disclose the names of the employees. The Ministry also withheld the résumé of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s former director because it believed that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator found that the former director’s résumé must be withheld under s. 22.
F14-21 Jun 30, 2014 District of Mission The applicant requested proposals submitted in response to a District of Mission RFP for gravel extr... more
The applicant requested proposals submitted in response to a District of Mission RFP for gravel extraction. At the time of the inquiry, no contract had been awarded in response to the RFP. The District withheld the proposals under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator required the District to continue to refuse access to most of the information in the proposals but to disclose information that is publicly available or is of a general nature.
F14-20 Jun 30, 2014 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure The applicant journalist requested documents about the rationale for changes to the tolling framewor... more
The applicant journalist requested documents about the rationale for changes to the tolling framework for the Port Mann Bridge. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure withheld information in three records citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA, and some information in one record it said constituted advice and recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the information under s. 12(1) because disclosure would reveal the substance of the deliberations of Cabinet. Other information must be released because it was either not covered by s. 12(1) or was background material and analysis under s. 12(2)(c). Section 13 did not need to be considered because the information to which it had been applied was protected under s. 12 of FIPPA.
F14-19 Jun 19, 2014 British Columbia Ferry Services Incorporated The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information relat... more
The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.
F14-18 Jun 19, 2014 University of Northern British Columbia A former University of Northern British Columbia (“UNBC”) student requested investigation materials ... more
A former University of Northern British Columbia (“UNBC”) student requested investigation materials in relation to complaints he made about a UNBC faculty member. UNBC withheld most of the responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties (s. 22). The adjudicator required UNBC to withhold some information in the records. However, there was other information UNBC was required to disclose.
F14-17 Jun 19, 2014 Ministry of Health An applicant requested records about himself and the British Columbia Onsite Sewage Association from... more
An applicant requested records about himself and the British Columbia Onsite Sewage Association from the Ministry of Health. The Ministry withheld responsive records on the basis that: disclosure would reveal policy advice or recommendations (s. 13), solicitor-client privilege applies (s. 14), and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold most of the records under these sections, but it was ordered to disclose some records. The adjudicator also determined the Ministry failed to exercise its discretion for the records withheld under s. 13 and ordered it to do so.
F14-16 Jun 2, 2014 Private Career Training Institutions Agency A journalist requested copies of legal invoices issued by Lawson Lundell to the Pacific Career Train... more
A journalist requested copies of legal invoices issued by Lawson Lundell to the Pacific Career Training Institutions Agency in 2012, as well as the proofs of payment by the Agency. The Agency withheld the records on the basis that they were subject to solicitor client privilege (s. 14 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the records are subject to solicitor client privilege.
F14-15 Jun 2, 2014 Private Career Training Institutions Agency A journalist requested records relating to the Pacific Career Training Institutions Agency’s procure... more
A journalist requested records relating to the Pacific Career Training Institutions Agency’s procurement of legal services from Lawson Lundell for a specified legal matter. The adjudicator determined that the Agency is authorized to refuse to disclose the withheld information because it is subject to solicitor client privilege under s. 14 of FIPPA.
F14-14 May 15, 2014 BC Pavilion Corporation In responding to a request for access to an Agreement between it and the third party, the public bod... more
In responding to a request for access to an Agreement between it and the third party, the public body withheld information under both s. 17 and s. 21. Before the inquiry began, the public body took the position that s. 21 did not require it to withhold information. The inquiry proceeded without the third party’s participation. Order F14-05 held that s. 17 did not authorize the public body to withhold information. The third party learned of the order and applied for it to be re-opened, on the basis that the Office is not functus officio and that it should have been given notice under s. 54(b) of the inquiry. The inquiry is re-opened, notice will be given under s. 54(b) and the applicability of s. 21 to information in the record will be considered.
F14-13 May 15, 2014 Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services The Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services applied under s. 43 of FIPPA to disreg... more
The Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services applied under s. 43 of FIPPA to disregard the respondent’s request for message tracking log files from government email servers for a six month period. The responsive information is millions of lines of text. The Ministry argued the respondent’s request is frivolous or vexatious because the respondent is not responsibly exercising his rights under FIPPA and the request is an abuse of the right to access. The adjudicator determined that the request is not frivolous or vexatious, and found s. 43 does not apply.
F14-12 May 15, 2014 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority The applicant requested information relating to paternity testing conducted at Vancouver General Hos... more
The applicant requested information relating to paternity testing conducted at Vancouver General Hospital. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority withheld some records under s. 3(1)(c), s. 14, s. 15(1)(l) and s. 22 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that VCHA was authorized to withhold the records withheld under ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 and was required to withhold some records under s. 22 FIPPA. The remaining records must be disclosed.
F14-11 Apr 1, 2014 Ministry of Justice The applicant journalist requested documents about possible changes to liquor distribution in BC. T... more
The applicant journalist requested documents about possible changes to liquor distribution in BC. The Ministry responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch withheld information in three documents citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA, and that the withheld information constituted advice and recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 12 or s. 13 applied to most of the withheld information. Neither s. 12 nor s. 13 applied to a small amount of the withheld information in two of the three documents, so that information could be released to the applicant.
F14-10 Mar 19, 2014 University of British Columbia A student requested an investigation report by the University of British Columbia relating to a sexu... more
A student requested an investigation report by the University of British Columbia relating to a sexual assault and harassment complaint that the student made against a faculty member. UBC disclosed portions of the report, but withheld other portions on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that UBC was required to refuse to disclose most of the withheld information.
F14-09 Mar 19, 2014 The Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicant requested a copy of all medical information and family history about her grandfather’s... more
The applicant requested a copy of all medical information and family history about her grandfather’s first cousin, who has been deceased for 42 years. The Ministry of Children and Family Development withheld the responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was not required to withhold most of the responsive records.
F14-08 Mar 6, 2014 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority A resident at a VCHA supportive housing facility requested all information relating to him from VCHA... more
A resident at a VCHA supportive housing facility requested all information relating to him from VCHA. VCHA disclosed some information but withheld parts of two Occupational Safety and Health reports on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of a third party caregiver. The adjudicator required VCHA to continue to withhold the information in the reports.
F14-07 Feb 27, 2014 City of Rossland The applicant requested copies of complaints sent to the City of Rossland’s external auditor about c... more
The applicant requested copies of complaints sent to the City of Rossland’s external auditor about concerns with City financial matters and related correspondence. The City disclosed most of the responsive records, but withheld an excerpt of a complaint from a City councillor to the auditor on the basis that disclosure would reveal the substance of in camera council meeting deliberations (s. 12(3)(b)) and would also be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (s. 22). The City also withheld the name of the person at the auditor’s office to whom the complaint letter was addressed on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the individual’s personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to withhold the excerpt of the complaint because it would reveal the substance of deliberations of the in camera council meetings, but ordered the City to disclose the name of the person in the auditor’s office.
P14-02 Feb 26, 2014 Pamela S. Boles Law Corporation The applicant requested the organization provide her access to her personal information and an expla... more
The applicant requested the organization provide her access to her personal information and an explanation on how her personal information was collected, used and disclosed. The organization failed to meet its obligations under ss. 28 and 29(1) of PIPA. The organization was ordered to respond to the applicant on or before March 7, 2014.
F14-06 Feb 24, 2014 BC Pavilion Corporation ("PavCo") The applicant requested copies of all resignation letters received by PavCo during the September 201... more
The applicant requested copies of all resignation letters received by PavCo during the September 2011 to September 2012 operating year. PavCo claimed that it was required under s. 22(1) of FIPPA to refuse disclosure of the letters because they contain personal information that relates to employment, occupational or educational history and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. PavCo correctly denied the applicant access to the personal information and it must be severed from the remaining portions of the record.
F14-05 Feb 24, 2014 BC Pavilion Corporation ("PavCo") The applicant requested a copy of the agreement between PavCo and the BC Lions for the use of BC Pla... more
The applicant requested a copy of the agreement between PavCo and the BC Lions for the use of BC Place Stadium. PavCo refused to release some portions of the agreement under s. 17(1) of FIPPA, claiming that disclosure would harm its financial or economic interests. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to the agreement.
P14-01 Feb 20, 2014 Venture Academy Inc. Venture Academy Inc. applied for authorization under ss. 37(a) and (b) of PIPA to disregard the resp... more
Venture Academy Inc. applied for authorization under ss. 37(a) and (b) of PIPA to disregard the respondent’s outstanding and future requests for access to, and correction of, her personal information. The adjudicator finds that s. 37(a) does not apply as the respondent’s outstanding request is not repetitious or systemic, and s. 37(b) does not apply because the outstanding request is not frivolous or vexatious. The application is denied.
F14-04 Feb 20, 2014 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant sought access to information in a successful proponent’s proposal to provide pharmacy ... more
The applicant sought access to information in a successful proponent’s proposal to provide pharmacy distribution services. The Provincial Health Services Authority had withheld the information under s. 21 of FIPPA because it concluded disclosure would harm the proponent’s business interests. The adjudicator found that s. 21 of FIPPA did not apply to some information in the proposal because the parties had incorporated the information into the contract that arose from the proposal. Some other parts of the proposal could not be withheld because the harm required by s. 21 was not established; the remainder of the proposal could be withheld under s. 21.
F14-03 Jan 23, 2014 Ministry of Justice The applicant requested information related to the Province’s decision to fund the legal expenses of... more
The applicant requested information related to the Province’s decision to fund the legal expenses of two ministerial assistants who were charged with criminal offences. The Ministry withheld some of the responsive records claiming they were protected by solicitor-client privilege (s. 14) and others because it believed disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy (s. 22). The ministerial assistants argued that all of the information in dispute should be withheld under ss. 14 and 22. The adjudicator finds that the Ministry is authorized to refuse access to all of the information in dispute under s. 14 because it is protected by solicitor-client privilege. In light of the conclusion that s. 14 applies to all of the disputed information, there is no need to consider s. 22.
F14-02 Jan 23, 2014 Ministry of Justice A member of the Legislative Assembly of BC requested information from the Ministry related to the de... more
A member of the Legislative Assembly of BC requested information from the Ministry related to the decision to fund the legal expenses of two ministerial assistants who were charged with criminal offences. He argued that disclosure of the records was clearly in the public interest (s. 25). The Ministry withheld some of the responsive records claiming they were protected by solicitor-client privilege (s. 14) and others because it believed disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy (s. 22). The ministerial assistants argued that all of the information in dispute should be withheld under ss. 14 and 22. The adjudicator finds that s. 25(1)(b) does not apply to the responsive records. The adjudicator also finds that the Ministry is authorized to refuse access to all of the information in dispute under s. 14 because it is protected by solicitor-client privilege. In light of the conclusion that s. 14 applies to all of the disputed information, there is no need to consider s. 22.
F14-01 Jan 16, 2014 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Compass Group requested a review of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority’s decision to disclose its co... more
Compass Group requested a review of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority’s decision to disclose its contract with VCHA to the applicant Hospital Employees’ Union. Compass argued disclosure would harm its business interests. The adjudicator determined that the information in the contract was not supplied in confidence within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b) of FIPPA, and VCHA was ordered to disclose the contract.
F13-30 Dec 19, 2013 Vancouver Island Health Authority Retirement Concepts Senior Services requested a review of Vancouver Island Health Authority’s decisi... more
Retirement Concepts Senior Services requested a review of Vancouver Island Health Authority’s decision to disclose certain financial statements to an applicant union. Retirement Concepts stated that disclosure of the records would harm its business interests under s. 21 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21 did not apply because there was no harm within the meaning of s. 21(1)(c).
F13-29 Dec 19, 2013 City of North Vancouver The applicants requested records relating to an investigation into their complaint that City officia... more
The applicants requested records relating to an investigation into their complaint that City officials improperly entered duplex units owned by the applicants. The City disclosed some records, but withheld portions of a memo on the basis that the withheld information was policy advice or recommendations, legal advice, and information that would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy if disclosed. The adjudicator determined that these sections applied to most of the withheld information, but ordered that some information be released.
P13-03 Dec 6, 2013 Weyerhaeuser Company Limited Weyerhaeuser applied for authority to disregard access and correction requests from a former employe... more
Weyerhaeuser applied for authority to disregard access and correction requests from a former employee under s. 37 of PIPA. The adjudicator authorized Weyerhaeuser to disregard the outstanding and future requests.
F13-28 Dec 6, 2013 Private Career Training Institutions Agency of British Columbia PCTIA identified a series of reports as responsive to an applicant’s request for information about t... more
PCTIA identified a series of reports as responsive to an applicant’s request for information about three private colleges. PCTIA provided notice to the owner of the colleges, Eminata Group, that it planned to disclose the reports to the applicant. Eminata requested a review of PCTIA’s decision because it believed disclosure would harm its interests under s. 21 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found s. 21 applied to some of Eminata’s enrolment information in the reports. The adjudicator also ordered PCTIA to withhold some information because it would unreasonably invade third parties’ personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA if released. The rest of the information in the reports was ordered disclosed.
F13-27 Dec 6, 2013 Labour Relations Board The applicant requested information compiled by a Labour Relations Board (“Board”) Industrial Relati... more
The applicant requested information compiled by a Labour Relations Board (“Board”) Industrial Relations Officer relating to a union’s application for certification. The Board withheld most of the information, asserting that FIPPA did not apply because s. 61(2)(b) of the ATA applied. The Board also argued that if FIPPA did apply, the information must be withheld either under s. 21 of FIPPA, because disclosure would reveal labour relations information supplied in confidence to a person appointed to inquire into a labour relations dispute; or under s. 22 of FIPPA because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy. The Adjudicator found that the ATA does not apply to the information, so FIPPA does apply and most of the information must be withheld under s. 21 of FIPPA. A small amount of information in a memo was not “supplied” under s. 21, does not contain personal information for the purpose of s. 22, and therefore cannot be withheld.
F13-26 Dec 6, 2013 City of Vancouver The City of Vancouver failed to respond to requests for records by two applicants within the timelin... more
The City of Vancouver failed to respond to requests for records by two applicants within the timelines required by FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City breached ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA, and ordered the City to respond to the requests for records by a specified deadline.
Dec 2, 2013 Commissioner recommends changes to freedom-of-information law In response to allegations that public bodies are failing in their duty to warn the public about hea... more
In response to allegations that public bodies are failing in their duty to warn the public about health and safety concerns, a new report from B.C.’s Information and Privacy Commissioner is recommending changes to freedom-of-information law to strengthen proactive disclosure requirements.
F13-25 Nov 26, 2013 Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission The applicant sought access to the clinical progress notes made by his court-ordered psychiatrist. ... more
The applicant sought access to the clinical progress notes made by his court-ordered psychiatrist. The Commission refused to disclose the responsive records because it said disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten the psychiatrist’s health and safety, under s. 19(1)(a) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Commission is authorized to refuse to disclose to the applicant the information withheld under s. 19(1)(a).
F13-24 Nov 14, 2013 City of Powell River The applicant requested copies of communications between the City of Powell River and its auditor re... more
The applicant requested copies of communications between the City of Powell River and its auditor related to a complaint the applicant made to the City about a barge facility. The adjudicator found that the City was permitted to withhold two legal opinions under s. 14, and parts of an email by the City’s auditor that contains expert opinion and advice under s. 13 of FIPPA. The adjudicator required the City to disclose a draft letter by the City’s auditor containing information already released by the City, three emails from a Councillor and parts of an email from the City’s auditor.
F13-23 Nov 7, 2013 British Columbia Lottery Corporation This is a rehearing of part of Order F11-28, which concerned email correspondence between BCLC’s the... more
This is a rehearing of part of Order F11-28, which concerned email correspondence between BCLC’s then chief executive officer and its former director and chair. The former director and chair argued that certain email correspondence requested by an applicant did not fall within the scope of FIPPA, so FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that BCLC had “custody” of the responsive records within the meaning of s. 3(1) of FIPPA, so the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to comply with the terms of Order F11-28.
F13-22 Nov 7, 2013 Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services The applicant requested information from the Ministry related to a Notice of Intent advising of the ... more
The applicant requested information from the Ministry related to a Notice of Intent advising of the Province’s plan to directly award contracts for telecommunications and other services to TELUS. The Ministry notified TELUS of its intention to disclose all of the information to the applicant. TELUS requested a review of the Ministry’s decision on the grounds that disclosure would harm its interests under s. 21(1)(c). The adjudicator found only a small portion of the information was supplied in confidence under s. 21(1)(b), and that disclosure could not reasonably be expected to result in harm under s. 21(1)(c). The adjudicator ordered disclosure of all of the requested information.
F13-21 Oct 2, 2013 Law Society of BC The applicant, a lawyer whose legal practice was under review by the Law Society, requested records ... more
The applicant, a lawyer whose legal practice was under review by the Law Society, requested records related to the review. The Law Society withheld some information from the records under ss. 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Law Society was authorized to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 13 and all of the information for which it claimed solicitor-client privilege under s. 14. The adjudicator also found that the Law Society must continue to refuse to disclose the personal information it withheld from the records under s. 22(3)(d) because the information relates to the employment, occupational or educational history of third parties and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.
F13-20 Oct 2, 2013 City of Abbotsford The City of Abbotsford identified email correspondence between it and Jack’s Towing as being respons... more
The City of Abbotsford identified email correspondence between it and Jack’s Towing as being responsive to an applicant’s request for information. The City notified Jack’s of its intention to disclose the emails to the applicant. Jack’s requested a review of the City’s decision on the grounds that disclosure would harm its interests under s. 21 and would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found s. 21 did not apply to any of the records, but ordered the City to withhold a small amount of third-party personal information that if released would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F13-19 Sep 26, 2013 British Columbia Safety Authority The British Columbia Safety Authority withheld a bridge inspection report from a journalist on the b... more
The British Columbia Safety Authority withheld a bridge inspection report from a journalist on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to a railway company’s business interests. The adjudicator was not satisfied that disclosure of the report would be harmful and found that s. 21 of FIPPA did not apply.
F13-18 Sep 5, 2013 Vancouver Coastal Health VCH sought authorization to disregard outstanding and future requests by the respondent relating to ... more
VCH sought authorization to disregard outstanding and future requests by the respondent relating to residential care provided to the respondent’s mother. The adjudicator concluded that the respondent’s requests are systematic and unreasonably interfere with VCH’s operations. VCH is authorized to disregard one outstanding request and future requests relating to the respondent’s mother’s care at a residential care facility.
P13-02 Aug 28, 2013 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (CANADA) LIMITED TKE assigns its company service vehicles to specific employees. It installed monitoring devices in ... more
TKE assigns its company service vehicles to specific employees. It installed monitoring devices in those vehicles, which provide the company with vehicle location and operation information. A TKE employee complained that TKE was not permitted to use this information for employee management purposes under PIPA. The adjudicator concluded that TKE was permitted to collect and use the information in the manner and for the purposes identified by TKE to manage its employment relationships. However, the adjudicator was not satisfied that TKE had properly notified the complainant about its collection, uses and purposes for this information, thereby failing to comply with ss. 13(3) and 16(6) of PIPA. The adjudicator also concluded that TKE breached s. 5 of PIPA. The adjudicator ordered TKE to stop collecting and using the information until it provided the required notice.
P13-01 Aug 28, 2013 KONE INC. KONE collects and uses GPS information from cellular phones issued to its service mechanic employees... more
KONE collects and uses GPS information from cellular phones issued to its service mechanic employees. KONE employees complained that KONE is not permitted under PIPA to use this information to manage their employment relationships. The adjudicator determined that KONE is permitted to collect and use the information under PIPA in the manner and for the purposes identified by KONE.
F13-17 Aug 21, 2013 City of Victoria The applicant requested information from proposals that various companies had submitted in response ... more
The applicant requested information from proposals that various companies had submitted in response to an RFP issued by the City for a construction project. The City disclosed some of the information but withheld other portions, stating that disclosure would be harmful to the business interests of several third parties. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose some of the disputed information, while requiring it to refuse to disclose other information.
F13-16 Jul 29, 2013 The Board of Education of School District No. 43 (Coquitlam) The School District sought authorization under s. 43 to disregard both outstanding and future access... more
The School District sought authorization under s. 43 to disregard both outstanding and future access requests made by, or on behalf of the respondents. The adjudicator found that only some of the outstanding access requests are frivolous and vexatious for the purposes of s. 43, and the School District is authorized to disregard them. In addition, the adjudicator authorized the School District to disregard the respondents’ future access requests - in excess of one open request at a time - for two years from the date of this decision, and the School District is not required to spend more than three hours responding to any one access request. Finally, the School District does not require relief under s. 43 of FIPPA to be able to refuse to disclose copies of records that it has already provided to the applicant, either through a previous request or another avenue of access.
F13-15 Jul 24, 2013 Ministry of Justice A law firm requested four agreements related to litigation initiated by the Province under BC’s Toba... more
A law firm requested four agreements related to litigation initiated by the Province under BC’s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The Ministry, on behalf of the Province, refused access on the basis that all four agreements were protected by solicitor-client privilege. It also refused access to one of the agreements on the grounds that disclosure would harm the conduct of relations between the Province and other provinces and reveal information received in confidence from other provinces. The adjudicator found that all four agreements were protected by solicitor-client privilege.
F13-14 Jul 24, 2013 Township of Langley This inquiry concerns a request for the original and revisions of a storm water management plan for ... more
This inquiry concerns a request for the original and revisions of a storm water management plan for a development in the Township of Langley. The township withheld the records under s. 12(3)(a) of FIPPA stating they were drafts of a “legal instrument by which the township acts”. The township submitted that the legal instrument in this case was a servicing agreement, or contract, between itself and the owner of the land under development. The adjudicator found that the meaning of “legal instrument” in s. 12(3)(a) did not include the servicing agreement or the storm water management plan because neither was a legislative or statutory enactment. Therefore, the township was not authorized to withhold the records under s. 12(3)(a).
F13-13 Jul 3, 2013 City of Quesnel The applicant requested the cellphone bills belonging to the Mayor of the City of Quesnel for a thre... more
The applicant requested the cellphone bills belonging to the Mayor of the City of Quesnel for a three year period. The City withheld the information in the “Number called” and the “To” and “From” columns of the bill on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that this was personal information, and that the City was obligated to refuse to disclose it pursuant to s. 22(1).
F13-12 Jun 28, 2013 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested an audio recording of a 911 call made by a third party to the VPD. While th... more
The applicant requested an audio recording of a 911 call made by a third party to the VPD. While the call contains some personal information of the applicant, the Adjudicator required the VPD to withhold the record because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F13-11 May 22, 2013 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested records related to a pulp mill. Approximately eight months later, the Minis... more
The applicant requested records related to a pulp mill. Approximately eight months later, the Ministry still had not provided the applicant with a response. The Ministry was found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and was ordered to provide the response by June 24, 2013.
F13-10 May 2, 2013 District of North Saanich The District of North Saanich withheld records requested by a resident relating to the District’s re... more
The District of North Saanich withheld records requested by a resident relating to the District’s review of an appointment of a person to the Peninsula Recreation Commission. The District said the records would reveal the substance of an in camera District council meeting, and were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found some records were appropriately withheld because solicitor-client privilege applied, and the remaining records were ordered released.
F13-09 Apr 16, 2013 City of Vancouver A City of Vancouver employee was suspended from work on two occasions. He requested all records rega... more
A City of Vancouver employee was suspended from work on two occasions. He requested all records regarding his suspensions. The City withheld records under ss. 13, 19(1)(a), and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold certain records under s. 13, and required the City to withhold other records under s. 22. Sections 13 or 22 applied to all records. The adjudicator did not order disclosure of any records.
F13-08 Mar 15, 2013 College of Psychologists of British Columbia The applicant made two separate requests for records. The first request was for a copy of a report ... more
The applicant made two separate requests for records. The first request was for a copy of a report of an organizational review of the College. The adjudicator found that the College was not justified in withholding information from the report under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. However, with two small exceptions, the adjudicator found that disclosure of the personal information contained in the report would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA and it may not be disclosed. The applicant’s second request was for records related to the issue of assessing substantially equivalent qualifications of College registrants, and the adjudicator found that the refusal to disclose them was authorized under s. 13(1) of FIPPA.
F13-07 Mar 13, 2013 Provincial Capital Commission A journalist requested records related to the Provincial Capital Commission’s request for proposals ... more
A journalist requested records related to the Provincial Capital Commission’s request for proposals to lease the CPR Steamship Terminal Building in Victoria’s inner harbour. Information was withheld under ss. 13(1), 15(1)(l), 21(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the majority of the information withheld under s. 13(1) was not advice and recommendations, so it must be disclosed. Regarding s. 15(1)(l), the public body failed to establish the disclosure of architectural drawings could reasonably be expected to harm the building’s security, so they must be disclosed. Regarding s. 21(1), there was no evidence of harm that would result from disclosure of the withheld financial information, and the adjudicator directed that it be provided to the applicant. Finally, the adjudicator ordered disclosure of some of the information that had been withheld under s. 22(1) because it was either not personal information or because disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy.
F13-06 Feb 15, 2013 District of Hope The applicant requested a copy of the successful proposal and the signed contract issued by the Dist... more
The applicant requested a copy of the successful proposal and the signed contract issued by the District for garbage, recycling and yard waste services. The District disclosed most of the records but withheld pricing information under s. 21(1) as harmful to the business interests of the successful proponent. The adjudicator found that although the information withheld in both the contract and the proposal was commercial or financial information, only the information in the proposal was “supplied in confidence” as required by s. 21(1). The adjudicator went on to find that the District had failed to establish that disclosure of the information withheld in the proposal and the contract could reasonably be expected to result in the harms in s. 21(1)(c)(i) and (iii).
F13-05 Feb 5, 2013 City of Rossland The applicant requested records relating to all letters, opinions, and reviews from the City’s lawye... more
The applicant requested records relating to all letters, opinions, and reviews from the City’s lawyer referred to in a memo from the City’s Chief Administrative Officer to the Mayor and City Council. The City refused to disclose the records on the basis that solicitor-client privilege applied. The Adjudicator found that solicitor-client privilege applies to the records.
F13-04 Feb 1, 2013 University of British Columbia The information UBC collects from a GPS system installed in its Campus Security patrol vehicles is ‘... more
The information UBC collects from a GPS system installed in its Campus Security patrol vehicles is ‘personal information’ of its employees in view of its use for purposes relating to the whereabouts and behaviour of the employees at work. UBC is authorized to collect and use this information in the circumstances. UBC failed, however, to give proper notice of collection of personal information, which it must do now.
F13-03 Jan 28, 2013 College of Psychologists of British Columbia The applicant requested information about what the College’s legal counsel charged for certain servi... more
The applicant requested information about what the College’s legal counsel charged for certain services. The responsive records were monthly legal accounts. The adjudicator found that the presumption that the requested information is protected by solicitor-client privilege had not been rebutted.
F13-02 Jan 28, 2013 Financial Institutions Commission The ICBA requested information about union pension plans filed with FICOM, which FICOM decided to di... more
The ICBA requested information about union pension plans filed with FICOM, which FICOM decided to disclose. The Trustees of the pension plans requested a review of the decision of FICOM on the basis that s. 21(1) of FIPPA applied. The Assistant Commissioner found that the Trustees and the Unions had not demonstrated that disclosure would cause significant harm to their competitive position or interfere significantly in their negotiating position under s. 21(1)(c)(i) of FIPPA; or cause them undue financial loss under s. 21(1)(c)(iii). The Assistant Commissioner required FICOM to disclose the information.
F13-01 Jan 25, 2013 Ministry of Health and Ministry of Citizens' Services and Open Government A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degenerati... more
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
P12-01 Dec 19, 2012 Schindler Elevator Corporation Schindler collects information using a GPS and engine status data system installed in its service ve... more
Schindler collects information using a GPS and engine status data system installed in its service vehicles, which are assigned exclusively to its mechanics. Mechanics do not report to work at an office; they travel from their homes to job sites on assigned routes. The GPS component of the system records a vehicle’s location and movements, as well as the time and date of its locations. The engine status component records the vehicle engine’s start and stop times, as well as things like excessive speeding, braking and acceleration. Among other things, Schindler collects and uses this information for employment management purposes; the information is personal information and employee personal information. Schindler is in the circumstances, including the policies it follows as to how and when it collects and uses this information, authorized to collect and use it.
F12-17 Dec 12, 2012 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested records related to his involvement as a suspect in a police investigation. T... more
The applicant requested records related to his involvement as a suspect in a police investigation. The adjudicator found the VPD was required to withhold most of the information on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The VPD was not required to withhold information relating to the police officers’ actions.
F12-16 Oct 30, 2012 British Columbia Rapid Transit Company The applicant requested a copy of a violence risk assessment report which examined his interactions ... more
The applicant requested a copy of a violence risk assessment report which examined his interactions with a co-worker. The adjudicator found that BCRTC is authorized to withhold portions of the report on the basis that it reveals advice and recommendations under s. 13(1). However, the adjudicator found that the evidence does not support BCRTC’s claim that disclosure of the remainder of the information could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or mental or physical health of others under s. 19(1)(a).
F12-15 Oct 25, 2012 City of Vancouver An architect requested documents created by the City of Vancouver relating to the address of a poten... more
An architect requested documents created by the City of Vancouver relating to the address of a potential laneway house development in the City. The City withheld portions of seven emails under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of one email because it had already been disclosed, and portions of the other six emails to which s. 13(1) did not apply. The City was authorized to withhold the remaining portions of the six emails under s. 13(1) because they contained advice and recommendations.
F12-14 Oct 22, 2012 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The ARA requested correspondence and associated records between ICBC and the federal Competition Bur... more
The ARA requested correspondence and associated records between ICBC and the federal Competition Bureau. ICBC withheld some of the information on the basis that it constituted advice and recommendations and it was subject to solicitor-client privilege. ICBC also argued that in accordance with the doctrine of paramountcy of federal legislation, FIPPA did not apply in this case because it was in conflict with federal legislation. The Assistant Commissioner found that the doctrine of paramountcy did not apply because there was no valid federal law that applied with respect to the records in the custody and control of ICBC. The Assistant Commissioner found that solicitor-client privilege applied to all of the records for which ICBC claimed this exception. With respect to the remaining information, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the advice and recommendations exception authorized ICBC to withhold some but not all of the information it claimed under this exception.
F12-13 Sep 13, 2012 BC Coroners Service A reporter requested third party records obtained by the coroner in an investigation into the death ... more
A reporter requested third party records obtained by the coroner in an investigation into the death of an Olympic luge athlete. The BC Coroners Service withheld the records under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The Commissioner found that s. 21(1) of FIPPA did not apply to the records because BCCS and the third parties failed to demonstrate the harm in disclosing them. The Commissioner ordered BCCS to disclose the records.
F12-12 Aug 23, 2012 Ministry of Justice The applicant requested video recordings relating to the time that she was detained at the Vancouver... more
The applicant requested video recordings relating to the time that she was detained at the Vancouver City Jail. On judicial review of a previous order in which some recordings were ordered released with some redactions, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the facial image of a Correctional Officer in the recording was third party personal information and remitted back to the Commissioner the question of whether the release of that information would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy. The applicant made no submissions on the remittal. The applicant has not met the burden of showing that the release of the information would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy.
F12-11 Jul 4, 2012 City of New Westminster A performing arts society requested records regarding assets located in a City-owned theatre. The Ci... more
A performing arts society requested records regarding assets located in a City-owned theatre. The City withheld two reports prepared for council and withheld portions of the minutes from two council meetings under s. 12(3)(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 12(3)(b) applied to the minutes of the in camera council meetings but not to the reports and that their release would not reveal the substance of council’s deliberations.
F12-10 Jun 29, 2012 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually in... more
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
F12-09 Jun 13, 2012 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastucture An applicant requested the traffic management plan and any permits that the Ministry issued in relat... more
An applicant requested the traffic management plan and any permits that the Ministry issued in relation to the Whistler GranFondo 2010. The Ministry withheld the traffic management plan and other information under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, on the grounds that disclosure would harm the business interests of TOIT Events. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) of FIPPA did not apply to the information, because TOIT had not supplied the information to the Ministry in confidence and TOIT failed to demonstrate the potential harm in disclosing it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose all of the information.
F12-08 Apr 27, 2012 BC Coroners Service The University of British Columbia Law Innocence Project applied for copies of an autopsy report and... more
The University of British Columbia Law Innocence Project applied for copies of an autopsy report and forensic laboratory report relating to a homicide. BCCS withheld the record under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure of the victim’s medical information would be an unreasonable invasion of her privacy. UBCLIP argued that it required the Reports in order for its contracted forensic expert to complete a full and proper review of the autopsy and form an expert opinion as to whether the conclusions of the Coroner were flawed. It submitted that this circumstance rebutted the presumption that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information and ordered BCCS to withhold the Reports.
F12-07 Apr 19, 2012 Ministry of Finance The BCCLA applied for a copy of an audit report on Provincial Police Services that Treasury Board ha... more
The BCCLA applied for a copy of an audit report on Provincial Police Services that Treasury Board had requested the Office of the Comptroller General produce for its consideration. The Ministry withheld the Report on the grounds that disclosure would reveal the substance of the deliberations of Treasury Board, which is a committee of the Executive Council for the purposes of s. 12(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) of FIPPA applied to the Report as it was produced with the intention that Treasury Board would consider it. The adjudicator required the Ministry to withhold the Report.
F12-06 Apr 19, 2012 The Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Victoria) A bus driver requested copies of complaints that students made against him regarding his behaviour w... more
A bus driver requested copies of complaints that students made against him regarding his behaviour when transporting them on a school trip. The School District provided him with one record in its entirety and another with all of the information, except for the names of the students, which it withheld under s. 22. The bus driver requested a review in order to obtain access to the names of the students and their contact information. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied to the names of the students, because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the students’ personal privacy.
F12-05 Feb 28, 2012 City of Fort St. John An applicant asked for records that related to an investigation of the City Mayor that resulted in s... more
An applicant asked for records that related to an investigation of the City Mayor that resulted in sanctions against the Mayor. The City withheld those records on the grounds that they were subject to solicitor-client privilege and local government confidences and because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. The Senior Adjudicator found that the lawyer’s communications with the City, which included a legal opinion, the Summary Report of the investigation of the Mayor and the complaint letters, were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Senior Adjudicator also determined that the complaint letters received prior to the City’s request for a legal opinion had an independent existence in City files, having been collected by the City prior to it seeking legal advice. However, the City was still required to withhold the complaint letters because their disclosure would unreasonably invade third-party privacy.
F12-04 Feb 2, 2012 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist requested information from BCLC relating to allegations BCLC failed to comply with the ... more
A journalist requested information from BCLC relating to allegations BCLC failed to comply with the Proceeds of Crime Act. The information included a letter by the regulating authority outlining instances where BCLC was alleged to have failed to comply with the Proceeds of Crime Act as well as a Notice of Violation fining BCLC. BCLC was ordered to disclose all of the withheld records. The Acting Senior Adjudicator found that disclosure of the records would not deny BCLC’s right to a fair trial nor would it facilitate the commission of an offence. Further, there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that disclosure of the withheld records would harm intergovernmental relations between the governments of Canada and British Columbia under s. 16 of FIPPA.
F12-03 Jan 30, 2012 University of British Columbia A citizens’ organization made a series of requests for records relating to research at UBC involving... more
A citizens’ organization made a series of requests for records relating to research at UBC involving animals. UBC responded that the records were outside the scope of FIPPA because they contained research information of UBC employees in accordance with s. 3(1)(e). The adjudicator found that most of the records contained the research information of UBC researchers. However, some of the records did not contain research information of UBC researchers. The adjudicator ordered UBC to continue processing the requests with respect to the records that did not contain research information of UBC researchers.
F12-02 Jan 19, 2012 Provincial Health Services Authority A journalist requested executive summaries of internal audit reports. The PHSA withheld five audit s... more
A journalist requested executive summaries of internal audit reports. The PHSA withheld five audit summaries in their entirety under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. The PHSA also applied s. 17(1) of FIPPA to three of the five audit summaries. The adjudicator found that disclosure would not reveal the substance of deliberations of a meeting of the Board of Directors under s. 12(3)(b), because the Board did not have the statutory authority to hold the meetings in the absence of the public. The adjudicator also found that disclosure could not be reasonably expected to cause the PHSA to suffer financial harm under s. 17(1). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1)(2)(g) applied to two of the audit summaries, as they were final audits of efficiency or performance of PHSA, or one of its programs or policies. Therefore, s. 13(1) did not apply to those two audit summaries. Section 13(1) did apply to advice and recommendations within the other three audit summaries, but not to those records in their entirety. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of parts of the three audit summaries and the other two audit summaries in their entirety.
F12-01 Jan 17, 2012 Emergency and Health Services Commission of British Columbia CUPE requested records related to a labour dispute between BC Paramedics and the Emergency and Healt... more
CUPE requested records related to a labour dispute between BC Paramedics and the Emergency and Health Services Commission. The Commission disclosed some records but withheld other information under ss. 12, 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. The A/Senior Adjudicator found the records for which the Commission claimed s. 14 were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Commission was also required to refuse to disclose the records for which it claimed s. 22 because disclosure of that information would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of certain employees. While the A/Senior Adjudicator determined that the Commission had properly applied ss. 12 and 13 to a number of records, he ordered the Commission to disclose other withheld information because it did not reveal the substance of cabinet deliberations nor did it reveal recommendations or advice by or for a public body.
F11-35 Dec 20, 2011 City of Vancouver An applicant requested from the City a copy of an operational review report written by Sierra, a thi... more
An applicant requested from the City a copy of an operational review report written by Sierra, a third-party service provider. The City withheld portions of the Report under ss. 17(1) and 21(1) arguing that disclosure would reasonably be expected to cause financial harm to the City and Sierra. Neither exception applies. In its submission, Sierra consented to the disclosure of the information in accordance with s. 21(3)(a). The City had failed to establish that disclosure would be reasonably expected to cause it financial or economic harm under s. 17(1). The Report does not constitute a plan relating to the management of personnel or administration of the City under s. 17(1)(c). The City had failed to establish that disclosure would harm its negotiating position under s. 17(1)(f). The City must disclose the entire report.
F11-34 Dec 7, 2011 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure A journalist requested copies of the electronic calendar of the Minister of Transportation for two y... more
A journalist requested copies of the electronic calendar of the Minister of Transportation for two years. The Ministry provided copies of printouts of the calendars for the two MLAs who were Ministers during that period, but withheld portions under ss. 17 (economic harm) and 22 (personal privacy) of FIPPA. It also withheld entries relating to MLA activities as being outside the scope of FIPPA. The journalist challenged the decision with respect to the entries relating to MLA activities. The Ministry argued that each electronic entry in the calendar was a separate record and the entries relating to MLA activities were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry. The adjudicator found that each entry was not a separate record: the calendars the Ministry produced were two records (one for each Minister) that were in the custody and under the control of the Ministry. These Ministry records happened to contain information about MLA activities. The Ministry also argued that some entries were records created by or for an officer of the legislature and were outside the scope of FIPPA in accordance with s. 3(1)(c). The records were not created by or for the Ombudsperson. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to complete the processing of the request with respect to the information it had incorrectly withheld as outside the scope of FIPPA.
F11-33 Dec 7, 2011 City of Prince Rupert The applicant requested a copy of a severance agreement between the City and its former Corporate Ad... more
The applicant requested a copy of a severance agreement between the City and its former Corporate Administrator. The City provided the total severance figure but declined to provide the severance agreement itself, on the basis that the records were subject to solicitor-client privilege and that their disclosure would unreasonably invade the former Corporate Administrator’s privacy. The A/Senior Adjudicator found that because the communication at issue was between the City’s lawyer and a third party, it was not subject to solicitor-client privilege. Further, the information in the record constituted remuneration under s. 22(4)(e) and, therefore, its disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy.
F11-32 Nov 2, 2011 British Columbia Lottery Corporation The applicant asked BCLC for records relating to its compliance with federal Proceeds of Crime legis... more
The applicant asked BCLC for records relating to its compliance with federal Proceeds of Crime legislation. BCLC identified four responsive records, withholding each in their entirety citing three exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA including solicitor-client privilege. BCLC said it provided the records to their solicitor to prepare for litigation in the Federal Appeals Court and as a result they became privileged as part of the “solicitor’s brief”. The A/Senior Adjudicator found the “solicitor’s brief” test did not apply because BCLC’s lawyer did not gather the records from third parties. Rather, counsel obtained the records from BCLC itself who came to possess them in the ordinary course of its business through the regulatory oversight of its operations. They were neither originally gathered nor created for the purpose of litigation. Records that are “ingathered” in this manner do not become privileged simply because they are later handed to the public body’s solicitor.
F11-31 Oct 20, 2011 University of British Columbia A journalist requested records from UBC relating to seven entities. UBC was able to provide some rec... more
A journalist requested records from UBC relating to seven entities. UBC was able to provide some records and a few others were publicly available but for the most part UBC argued that it did not have custody and control of the requested records. Order F09-06 found UBC to have control of the requested records with respect to three of the entities. The Order was subject to a judicial review that led to a consent order to the effect that the OIPC would reconsider the question as to whether UBC had custody or control of the records of the three entities. In the meantime, a judicial review of Order F08-01 found that the relationship between SFU and its subsidiaries did not meet the common law test for piercing the corporate veil, and, therefore, SFU did not exercise control over the records. In this case, the relationship between UBC and the three entities does not meet the common law test for piercing the corporate veil. UBC does not exercise control over the records for the purpose of FIPPA.
F11-30 Oct 7, 2011 City of Vancouver An applicant asked the City for information related to a lease arrangement between the City and a co... more
An applicant asked the City for information related to a lease arrangement between the City and a company called Ecodrive. The City notified Ecodrive that it intended to release certain information requested by the applicant. Ecodrive sought to review that decision because it said disclosure would be harmful to its business interests. The adjudicator found the information at issue did not meet the business harms test because it related to a negotiated agreement between the parties and not supplied information as required by s. 21 of FIPPA.
F11-29 Oct 6, 2011 Ministry of Finance The Ministry withheld certain information from an employee who requested records relating to the ter... more
The Ministry withheld certain information from an employee who requested records relating to the termination of her long-term disability benefits. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to withhold the information in certain records because some was subject to litigation privilege; some constituted advice or recommendations while other information was found to unreasonably invade a third party’s personal privacy. The adjudicator concluded however that the Ministry was required to release other information that was not created when litigation was in reasonable contemplation. The Ministry was also required to release other information that he found did not consist of advice or recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA.
F11-28 Sep 22, 2011 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also ... more
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
F11-27 Sep 14, 2011 Northern Health Authority The union representing the employees of Domcor requested a copy of the contract between the company ... more
The union representing the employees of Domcor requested a copy of the contract between the company and the health authority for the provision of security services. Domcor asked for a review of the decision of the health authority to disclose the contract to the union, on the basis that release would harm its business interests. The information was found to be the commercial and financial information of Domcor, but Domcor failed to demonstrate that it had supplied the information in confidence. The adjudicator ordered the health authority to disclose the contract.
F11-26 Aug 31, 2011 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested information about expenses government incurred during a lawsuit with a const... more
The applicant requested information about expenses government incurred during a lawsuit with a construction company. The responsive records related to the legal billings of Ministry lawyers and external legal counsel. The Ministry disclosed some information and withheld other information on the basis it was protected by solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found the withheld information was presumptively privileged and, in the circumstances of this case, the privilege had not been rebutted.
F11-25 Aug 25, 2011 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist asked BCLC for its online sales figures sorted by the first three characters of BC’s po... more
A journalist asked BCLC for its online sales figures sorted by the first three characters of BC’s postal codes. BCLC refused saying disclosure of the information could harm its financial interests and benefit its competitors in the “grey market”. The Commissioner concluded that BCLC had not established that the sales figures had any current or potential value under s. 17(1)(b). Further, BCLC’s arguments that disclosing the information would cause undue gain or loss pursuant to s. 17(1)(d) were speculative and therefore fell short of demonstrating the harm claimed could reasonably be expected to occur.
F11-24 Aug 24, 2011 Ministry of Environment The applicant requested information relating to his participation in a Liquid Waste Management Plan ... more
The applicant requested information relating to his participation in a Liquid Waste Management Plan process. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others on the basis they were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found the records were communications between the Ministry and its solicitor seeking and providing legal advice. The adjudicator also determined there was no evidence that the Ministry either explicitly or impliedly waived privilege in this case.
F11-23 Aug 22, 2011 British Columbia Lottery Corporation A journalist requested a Progress Report on a program designed to help problem gamblers. The adjudic... more
A journalist requested a Progress Report on a program designed to help problem gamblers. The adjudicator ordered the Progress Report disclosed. Virtually nothing in the Report constituted recommendations or advice as BCLC argued. Instead, what it contained was a narrative, punctuated by charts and tables that describe the answers to questions posed by the report’s authors. The Report was also found to be a “statistical survey” under s. 13(2)(b) and therefore the few passages containing advice or recommendations were ordered disclosed. Further, the adjudicator rejected as speculative claims that the disclosure of the Report could reasonably be expected to deny BCLC a fair trial.
F11-22 Aug 18, 2011 British Columbia College of Teachers A journalist requested a list of the names, current certificate status and current practicing status... more
A journalist requested a list of the names, current certificate status and current practicing status of all teachers registered with the College. The College withheld the information under ss. 20(1) and 22 of FIPPA on the grounds that the information was already publicly available through a searchable database on its website and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the teachers’ privacy. Section 20(1) does not apply because the list of names is not available for purchase by the public. Section 22 does not apply because disclosure is authorized by the Teaching Profession Act and the information at issue consists of a discretionary benefit similar to a licence. The College must disclose the list including all of the fields, and in the electronic format, he has requested. The College is not required to notify individual teachers about the disclosure.
F11-21 Aug 18, 2011 Ministry of Education An education data analyst complained about the refusal of the Ministry of Education to grant him acc... more
An education data analyst complained about the refusal of the Ministry of Education to grant him access to identifiable student exam results under s. 35 of FIPPA. The Ministry was found to have exercised discretion appropriately in refusing a previous request for the same data. The Ministry is not required to re-exercise its discretion.
F11-20 Aug 18, 2011 Ministry of Education The applicant requested access to electronic copies of fields of Foundation Skills Assessment studen... more
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. This included a more recent set of the same data that Order F09-21 and Order F10-29 required the Ministry to disclose to him, plus a second set of data. Despite the previous orders, the Ministry refused access to both sets under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Commissioner found that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied to the first set of data, because the previous orders had decided the issue and that the Ministry could not seek a different result from the previous case. The Commissioner also found that the second set of data did not constitute personal information. The Ministry is not authorized to withhold any of the information.
F11-19 Aug 9, 2011 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General A journalist requested cost estimates for establishing a provincial police force. The Ministry withh... more
A journalist requested cost estimates for establishing a provincial police force. The Ministry withheld portions of the records under s. 13 on the grounds they revealed advice or recommendations. The adjudicator found the disputed information constituted advice as previous orders and case law have interpreted the term. Therefore, the Ministry was authorized to withhold it.
F11-18 Jun 17, 2011 Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation The applicant requested records related to the use of amplified sound in parks for 17 events. After ... more
The applicant requested records related to the use of amplified sound in parks for 17 events. After a delay of several weeks, the Board responded by issuing a fee estimate of $510 for searching for the records, plus photocopying and delivery charges. The applicant requested a fee waiver to which the Board did not respond. The Board failed to comply with its duty to respond on time to the request for records and the request for a fee waiver. The fee is excused and the Board is ordered to respond to the request.
F11-17 Jun 9, 2011 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant was a lawyer involved in a class action lawsuit against UBC over parking fees. She req... more
The applicant was a lawyer involved in a class action lawsuit against UBC over parking fees. She requested a letter and memo that UBC sent to the Ministry concerning the lawsuit. The Ministry refused on the basis that the information consisted of recommendations and advice under s. 13 of FIPPA and because it was protected by solicitor-client privilege. The applicant argued the disputed information constituted lobbying rather than advice. The adjudicator found that lobbying is a matter strictly regulated by the Lobbyists Registration Act and that is not what occurred in this case. This finding is consistent with the scheme of s. 13 that protects advice developed by one public body for another. The adjudicator also rejected the applicant‘s argument for release of the letter and memo because they were a ?proposal? concerning a change to a program about which the Ministry had made a decision. The adjudicator concluded that if the disputed records were a ?proposal? it concerned a change to legislation, not a program.
F11-16 May 27, 2011 Provincial Health Services Authority In the judicial review of Order F09-07, the court set aside the decision that a human rights investi... more
In the judicial review of Order F09-07, the court set aside the decision that a human rights investigator was acting in a quasi judicial capacity for the purposes of s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA in carrying out her investigation of a complaint against a doctor. The judge remitted back to the senior adjudicator the question of whether the investigator’s records were her “personal notes” or her “communications” for the purposes of s. 3(1)(b). The senior adjudicator found that the investigator’s introductory notes, notes on agendas and telephone conversations and her outgoing correspondence are her “personal notes” and “communications” for the purposes of s. 3(1)(b). The senior adjudicator found that the other correspondence, including incoming letters and emails to the investigator, and her typed and handwritten interview notes are not her “personal notes” and “communications” and that they are not excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(b). The PHSA is ordered to decide whether the doctor is entitled to access to the information that s. 3(1)(b) does not exclude.
F11-15 May 12, 2011 College of Massage Therapists of British Columbia The applicant, a former Board member of the College, requested certain legal invoices that she said ... more
The applicant, a former Board member of the College, requested certain legal invoices that she said referenced her. The College refused on the basis that solicitor-client privilege protected the responsive records. The adjudicator found that solicitor-client privilege applied to the records and that there was no evidence that the College intended to waive privilege.
F11-14 May 12, 2011 Ministry of Finance FIPA requested records related to the Revenue Management Project. The Ministry withheld some informa... more
FIPA requested records related to the Revenue Management Project. The Ministry withheld some information under ss. 15, 17 and 21. The Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the records under s. 15 because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the security of the Province’s computer system. The Ministry was not authorized to withhold the list of computer software and certain server information withheld under this section. The Ministry was also not authorized to withhold any records withheld under s. 17 because it had not demonstrated that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause financial or economic harm to the Province. With respect to s. 21 the information was found to be commercial information of HPAS, but HPAS failed to demonstrate that it had “supplied” the information in confidence. Moreover, the third part of the three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA, relating to significant harm to business interests, was not met. The public body was ordered to disclose the records it withheld under s. 21.
F11-13 May 11, 2011 BC Coroners Service An applicant requested policy manuals from the BC Coroners Service. The BCCS responded by providing ... more
An applicant requested policy manuals from the BC Coroners Service. The BCCS responded by providing two documents, while withholding some information under ss. 13 and 15 of FIPPA. The BCCS subsequently released all the information it withheld under s. 13 but continued to withhold some information under s. 15, on the grounds that disclosure would harm the effectiveness of investigative techniques and procedures currently used, or likely to be used, in law enforcement. Coroner’s investigations found to constitute law enforcement where they form part of a criminal investigation. It was reasonable to expect that disclosure of some of the information currently used, or likely to be used, in Coroner’s investigations would harm the effectiveness of investigative techniques. BCCS authorized to withhold the information.
P11-02 May 6, 2011 Economical Mutual Insurance Company A man complained that Economical had obtained his credit score without his consent when it renewed h... more
A man complained that Economical had obtained his credit score without his consent when it renewed his homeowner’s insurance. Economical argued on a number of grounds that it was authorized to collect the credit score. The adjudicator found that the purpose for which Economical collected the complainant’s credit score was one that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances within the meaning of s. 11. She also found that Economical was not requiring consent for collection beyond what is necessary within the meaning of s. 7(2), that there was no deemed consent under s. 8 and that the notice Economical provided for collection of the credit score was not adequate for the purposes of ss. 10(1)(a) and 7(1). The adjudicator concluded that it was not appropriate to consider in the circumstances whether the complainant had given express consent to the collection. The adjudicator ordered Economical to stop collecting and using personal information it had collected in contravention of PIPA, to review the consents it has provided to insurance applicants and to provide adequate notice to its applicants. Once it has provided adequate notice and obtained consents, Economical may resume collecting and using credit scores.
F11-12 May 5, 2011 British Columbia Lottery Corporation Applicant requested BC Lottery Corporation’s “Casino Standards, Policies and Procedures Manual (Vers... more
Applicant requested BC Lottery Corporation’s “Casino Standards, Policies and Procedures Manual (Version 2)”. BCLC denied access to the Manual in its entirety under ss. 15 and 17. Section 17 found not to apply at all and s. 15 found to apply to certain portions. BCLC ordered to disclose portions of Manual to which s. 15 found not to apply.
F11-11 May 4, 2011 Ministry of Agriculture The applicant requested data from the Ministry relating to information gathered from fish farms unde... more
The applicant requested data from the Ministry relating to information gathered from fish farms under the Sea Lice Program and Fish Health Program. The Ministry refused the request on the basis that disclosure could deprive researchers of priority of publication under s. 17(2) of FIPPA. The Ministry demonstrated that two experienced researchers were writing scientific papers for peer-reviewed journals and disclosure of the data could result in the papers not being published. The Ministry was authorized under s. 17(2) to withhold the data. The applicant also argued that s. 17(3) of FIPPA required the disclosure of the data as it consisted of the results of product testing. Section 17(3) found not to require disclosure of information subject to 17(2).
F11-10 Mar 31, 2011 College of physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia A physician requested his entire file from the College. In response, the College disclosed over 1,60... more
A physician requested his entire file from the College. In response, the College disclosed over 1,600 pages of records, withholding other information and records under s. 3(1)(c) and s. 22(1). The College is found to have applied s. 3(1)(c) correctly. The College is also found to have applied s. 22(1) correctly to some information. It is ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) was found not to apply, including “contact information” and the applicant’s own personal information.
F11-09 Mar 30, 2011 Abbotsford Police Board The applicant requested a police report from the Abbotsford Police which disclosed the report in sev... more
The applicant requested a police report from the Abbotsford Police which disclosed the report in severed form. The APB was found to have severed information correctly under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).
F11-08 Mar 9, 2011 Vancouver Island Health Authority The HEU requested access to documents related to quality assurance in the provision of dietary and h... more
The HEU requested access to documents related to quality assurance in the provision of dietary and housekeeping services between the public body and Compass Canada. Compass asked for a review of the public body’s decision to give access to the records. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of Compass, but Compass failed to demonstrate that it had supplied the information “in confidence”. Moreover, the third part of the three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA, relating to significant harm to business interests, was not met. The public body was ordered to disclose the records.
P11-01 Feb 18, 2011 Mainstream Association for Proactive Community Living The applicant requested information concerning an investigation the Association conducted into a wor... more
The applicant requested information concerning an investigation the Association conducted into a workplace complaint he made. The Association provided some records and withheld other information. The Association was required to withhold the disputed information from the applicant because it would reveal personal information about another individual. Further, the disclosure of the requested information would also reveal the identity of individuals who provided personal information about another individual. Those former individuals did not consent to the disclosure of their identities and therefore the Association was required to withhold it. Finally, because the applicant’s personal information and the other individual’s personal information were inextricably intertwined, the Association was not able to remove the other individual’s personal information and leave any intelligible information to disclose.
F11-07 Feb 18, 2011 British Columbia Assessment Authority CUPE requested copies of three leases for BC Assessment?s offices in Penticton, Vernon and Kelowna, ... more
CUPE requested copies of three leases for BC Assessment?s offices in Penticton, Vernon and Kelowna, as well as schedules to a service agreement. BC Assessment originally applied ss. 15(1)(l), 17(1), 21(1) and 22(1) to portions of the three leases. During mediation and the early stages of the inquiry, most of the issues and records fell away, leaving only the application of s. 17(1) to the Kelowna lease. BC Assessment provided no evidentiary basis to support the application of s. 17(1). This exception is found not to apply and BC Assessment is ordered to disclose the severed information in the Kelowna lease.
F11-06 Feb 16, 2011 Vancouver Police Board An applicant requested his personal information in the custody of the VPD. The VPD responded by rele... more
An applicant requested his personal information in the custody of the VPD. The VPD responded by releasing copies of four police occurrence reports involving the applicant, but withholding some information collected through CPIC under s. 16(1)(b) and the personal information of third parties collected as part of the investigations on the four files under s. 22(1). The VPD was not authorized to refuse to disclose information under s. 16(1)(b) and is ordered to disclose this information. The VPD was required to withhold other information under s. 22(1), except for information that the applicant himself provided to the VPD.
F11-05 Feb 14, 2011 Vancouver Island Health Authority A nurse requested a copy of a job reference about her that her employer, a physician, had sent to VI... more
A nurse requested a copy of a job reference about her that her employer, a physician, had sent to VIHA. VIHA refused access to the record in its entirety under s. 22(2)(f), saying the physician had supplied the reference in confidence. VIHA did not establish that the physician supplied the reference in confidence. It also did not discharge its burden of proving that the applicant was not entitled to have access to her own personal information. VIHA is ordered to disclose the entire record.
F11-04 Feb 3, 2011 The Board of Education of School District No.39 (Vancouver) After a former teacher was convicted of a number of offences, the School District commissioned Don A... more
After a former teacher was convicted of a number of offences, the School District commissioned Don Avison to conduct a review of its current policies and practices in the area of child protection. In response to the applicant‘s request, the School District released a severed version of Avison‘s report on his review, withholding information under several sections of FIPPA. An earlier decision, Order F10-18, of June 7, 2010, determined that solicitor client privilege did not apply to the severed information because Avison was not retained to act as a legal advisor to the School District. In this decision, the Commissioner concluded that disclosure of the Report would not reveal the substance of deliberations of a meeting of the board of education under s. 12(3)(b) and could not be reasonably expected to cause the School District to suffer financial harm under s. 17(1). The Commissioner also found that, as the Report was a final report on the performance and efficiency of School District policies under s. 13(2)(g), s. 13(1) (protection of advice or recommendations) did not apply. Finally, the Commissioner found that s. 22(1) applied to the employment history of identifiable individuals, but that other personal information about employees could be disclosed because it was factual or routine information. The Commissioner ordered the School Board to disclose all severed information except for the employment history information.
F11-03 Jan 25, 2011 City of Surrey The City launched court proceedings against the applicant relating to the apprehension of one of his... more
The City launched court proceedings against the applicant relating to the apprehension of one of his pet dogs and what it alleged was the applicant’s illegal occupation of a City road allowance. Subsequently the applicant requested information relating to himself, his two pet dogs and the City. The City provided a number of records but refused disclosure of others under ss. 14, 15 and 22 of FIPPA. Solicitor-client privilege applied to most of the records in dispute thereby authorizing the City to withhold them under s. 14. Litigation privilege applied to some of these records because even though the two court proceedings were concluded, litigation related to them was reasonably apprehended by the City. The City was authorized to withhold the balance of the records because they could reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement and thereby could reasonably be expected to harm law enforcement.
F11-02 Jan 25, 2011 Provincial Health Services Authority and Children's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia A physician whose employment and hospital privileges at the CWHC are presently suspended requested m... more
A physician whose employment and hospital privileges at the CWHC are presently suspended requested minutes of the meetings of a medical departmental staff committee of the CWHC. The PHSA responded by providing the applicant with records while withholding information under ss. 12(1), 13, 17 and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The PHSA subsequently ceased to rely on ss. 13 and 17. Section 51 of the Evidence Act applies to some but not all passages. PHSA ordered to process this latter information under FIPPA. Section 22 of FIPPA applies to the medical information of patients and staff. It also applies to the employment history of staff and prospective staff, including evaluations of work, announcement of retirements and new hiring, the passing of exams and immigration issues. Section 22 does not apply to the professional opinions that identifiable physicians expressed relating to the operation of the CWHC and the PHSA is ordered to disclose this information.
F11-01 Jan 5, 2011 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested information relating to a specific Taxation (Rural Area) Act account number.... more
The applicant requested information relating to a specific Taxation (Rural Area) Act account number. The Ministry provided the applicant some information but withheld other information under s. 21(2) and s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Ministry was required to withhold the disputed information under s. 21(2) of FIPPA because it was obtained for collecting a tax or determining tax liability under the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and none of the third parties involved consented to its disclosure.
F10-44 Dec 22, 2010 City of Richmond An applicant requested details of a settlement that a former employee received from the City. The Ci... more
An applicant requested details of a settlement that a former employee received from the City. The City withheld the settlement agreement in its entirety under s. 22, on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the former employee’s personal privacy. The applicant subsequently narrowed the request to the amount of money the City paid the former employee, as provided in the settlement agreement. Section 22 does not apply to the information withheld, because disclosure is desirable for public scrutiny. The City is ordered to disclose the financial amount paid to the former employee.
F10-43 Dec 17, 2010 Kwantlen Polytechnic University The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Resear... more
The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Research Ethics Board. The University argued the records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were outside of FIPPA’s jurisdiction because of s. 3(1)(e). Even though the request for the records came from the employee himself, the adjudicator found, with the exception of two legal opinions, he had no authority over them because FIPPA did not apply. The records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were therefore excluded from FIPPA under s. 3(1)(e). The Ministry properly withheld the two legal opinions at issue under s. 14 of FIPPA.
F10-42 Dec 17, 2010 Kwantlen Polytechnic University The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Resear... more
The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Research Ethics Board. The University argued the records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were thus outside FIPPA’s jurisdiction because of s. 3(1)(e). The adjudicator found that he had no authority over the records because FIPPA did not apply, even though the request for them came from the employee himself. The records contain the research information of a post-secondary employee and are therefore excluded from FIPPA under s. 3(1)(e).
F10-41 Nov 29, 2010 Vancouver Island Health Authority A surgeon, who previously exercised hospital privileges with VIHA, requested a copy of a letter of c... more
A surgeon, who previously exercised hospital privileges with VIHA, requested a copy of a letter of complaint that a general practitioner had written about him to the chief of surgery. This letter initiated a review of some of the applicant’s cases that led ultimately in the ending of his hospital privileges. VIHA withheld portions of the letter under s. 22(1) of FIPPA on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy of third parties. This information included details about the diagnosis and treatment of the applicant’s patients. VIHA also claimed that s. 51 of the Evidence Act applied to a passage relating to information that was disclosed to a Medical Advisory Committee. Section 51 of the Evidence Act applies to the passage in question. Section 22 of FIPPA applies to some, but not all, of the information withheld. VIHA ordered to disclose information about the applicant’s treatment and diagnosis of unnamed but potentially identifiable patients.
F10-40 Nov 25, 2010 Vancouver Island Health Authority The HEU requested access to contracts and documents related to the provision of dietary and housekee... more
The HEU requested access to contracts and documents related to the provision of dietary and housekeeping services between the public body and Compass Canada. Compass asked for a review of the public body?s decision to give access to portions of the contract relating to the financial amounts and the timelines of some of the terms of the contract. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of Compass, but the information in the contract was found to be negotiated and not supplied. Compass also failed to substantiate that disclosure would cause economic harm. The three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not met. Public body ordered to disclose the remaining schedules of the contracts.
F10-39 Nov 25, 2010 Ministry of Citizens' Services FIPA requested access to the Workplace Support Services contract documentation between the Province ... more
FIPA requested access to the Workplace Support Services contract documentation between the Province and IBM. The Ministry withheld portions under ss. 15 and 17. Exceptions found not to apply and Ministry ordered to disclose all withheld information. The Ministry’s submission that if the disputed information is released vendors will not negotiate future Alternative Service Delivery was unconvincing.
F10-38 Nov 4, 2010 Office of the Premier The applicant requested records of telephone calls between Patrick Kinsella and the Premier’s Office... more
The applicant requested records of telephone calls between Patrick Kinsella and the Premier’s Office from 2001 to the date of his request. The Premier’s Office issued a fee estimate of $450 for locating and retrieving the records. The applicant requested a public interest fee waiver which the Premier’s Office denied. The Premier’s Office’s decision to deny a fee waiver was appropriate, as the requested records do not relate to a matter of public interest.
F10-37 Nov 3, 2010 New Westminster Police Board Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investi... more
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investigation into the incident. NWPB disclosed much of the information. Section 22(1) found not to apply to most of the information withheld under that exception and NWPB ordered to disclose it, subject to reconsideration of s. 15(1)g). Third parties found not to be “confidential sources of law enforcement information” and s. 15(1)(d) therefore does not apply. Some information relates to or was used in the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. However New Westminster Police Board found not to have exercised discretion properly in applying s.15(1)(g) and is ordered to reconsider its decision.
F10-36 Nov 3, 2010 WorkSafeBC Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested records of WorkSafeBC’s investi... more
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested records of WorkSafeBC’s investigation into the incident. WorkSafeBC disclosed most of the information, except the identifying information of several individuals. Section 22 found not to apply to most of the withheld information and WorkSafeBC ordered to disclose it.
F10-35 Oct 29, 2010 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant requested records about the Health Centre’s Peer Review Committee examination of a har... more
The applicant requested records about the Health Centre’s Peer Review Committee examination of a harassment complaint against him. The PHSA refused to disclose the information because it said some records were personal notes and communications of persons acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and others were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found that s. 3(1)(b) excluded some records from FIPPA’s application while the balance of the records were subject to solicitor-client privilege.
F10-34 Oct 13, 2010 Fraser Health Authority and Partnerships BC CUPE made a request to Partnerships British Columbia for all documents submitted for an independent ... more
CUPE made a request to Partnerships British Columbia for all documents submitted for an independent review of the financial model of the Abbotsford Hospital Project. The request was partially transferred to the Fraser Health Authority. The public bodies withheld some information relating to the risk assessment of aspects of the project on the grounds that disclosure would damage their negotiating position on future contracts, in accordance with s. 17(1)(f). The public bodies were authorized by s. 17(1) to refuse to give access to the information at issue
P10-03 Sep 29, 2010 Occupational Health and Safety Agency For Healthcare in BC The applicant, a former senior executive and research associate requested some of her personal infor... more
The applicant, a former senior executive and research associate requested some of her personal information in the custody or control of OHSAH, a non-profit healthcare agency. OHSAH issued a fee estimate of $5,075.35 for approximately 8,000 pages of records. It subsequently reduced the fee to $3,432.70 for 5,455 pages of records. The applicant complained about the fee, on the grounds that it was neither minimal nor reasonable. OHSAH found to have charged labour costs for unnecessary activities. It was also unnecessary to use 20 lb. bond paper and plastic binders. OHSAH ordered to recalculate the fee to exclude unnecessary labour costs, pages and materials. OHSAH also ordered to investigate whether copies could be provided on lower quality paper for a reduced rate.
F10-33 Sep 27, 2010 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority The applicant requested salary information for all union-exempt employees for a two-year period and ... more
The applicant requested salary information for all union-exempt employees for a two-year period and other payment information concerning a former union-exempt TransLink employee. These payments are considered remuneration of an employee of a public body for the purpose of s. 22(4)(e). Disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the third party, and, therefore, TransLink must disclose the requested information.
F10-32 Sep 27, 2010 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority The applicant requested salary and consulting fees paid to a TransLink employee. These payments are ... more
The applicant requested salary and consulting fees paid to a TransLink employee. These payments are considered remuneration of an employee of a public body for the purpose of s. 22(4)(e). Disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the third party, and, therefore, TransLink must disclose the requested information.
F10-31 Sep 7, 2010 Ministry of Children and Family Development The complainant consented to the Ministry conducting a “prior contact check” for the benefit of the ... more
The complainant consented to the Ministry conducting a “prior contact check” for the benefit of the complainant?s new employer, a social service agency providing services to troubled youth. In the process of conducting the check, a Ministry social worker came across a decade-old and uninvestigated allegation of sexual abuse against the applicant. The social worker recommended to the employer that the complainant be barred from unsupervised contact with youth, which resulted in his termination. The Ministry was found not to have taken any steps to assess the accuracy of the information before it used that information in the decision to recommend the applicant be supervised in the workplace, failing to comply with s. 28 of FIPPA.
F10-30 Aug 26, 2010 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested records detailing what ministries were responsible for payments to certain g... more
The applicant requested records detailing what ministries were responsible for payments to certain government suppliers listed in the Public Accounts. The Ministry said that producing the record required it to manually process raw data that s. 6(2) of FIPPA did not obligate it to do. The Ministry is not required to create the records that need manual processing but is required, under s. 6(2) to create a record containing the raw data.
F10-29 Aug 16, 2010 Ministry of Education Just before compliance with Order F09-21 was due, the Ministry requested ?clarification? of the orde... more
Just before compliance with Order F09-21 was due, the Ministry requested ?clarification? of the order, suggesting there were difficulties complying with it. The senior adjudicator re-opened the order to consider submissions from the parties on the issues the Ministry raised. The Ministry argued that disclosure of the narrowed data as ordered would unreasonably invade the privacy of students whose FSA results were the subject of the order. The applicant argued that Order F09-21 adequately protected students‘ privacy and that the Ministry should comply with the order. The senior adjudicator concluded that compliance with Order F09-21 would not lead to a significantly greater risk of identifying individual student results and would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The senior adjudicator also clarified what she intended in Order F09-21 and ordered the Ministry to comply with that order.
F10-28 Aug 16, 2010 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority The HEU requested access to a contract and subsequent amendments for laundry and linen services betw... more
The HEU requested access to a contract and subsequent amendments for laundry and linen services between the public body and K-Bro Linens Systems. K-Bro asked for a review of the public body?s decision to give access to portions of the contract relating to service delivery options, performance management provisions, and base pricing. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of K-Bro, but the information in the contract was found to be negotiated and not supplied. K-Bro also failed to substantiate that disclosure would cause economic harm. The three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not met. Public body ordered to disclose the rest of the contract.
F10-27 Aug 16, 2010 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority The HEU requested access to the patient food services contract and the retail food services contract... more
The HEU requested access to the patient food services contract and the retail food services contract between the public body and Sodexo Canada. Sodexo asked for a review of the public body’s decision to give access to portions of the contract relating to quality standards and targets; fees for food services; goods and services covered by certain rates; capital repayments; and customer sales base information. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of Sodexo, but the information in the contract was found to be negotiated and not supplied. Sodexo also failed to substantiate that disclosure would cause economic harm. The three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not met. Public body ordered to disclose the rest of the contract.
F10-26 Aug 16, 2010 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority The HEU requested access to the original cleaning services contract between the public body and Comp... more
The HEU requested access to the original cleaning services contract between the public body and Compass Canada and a copy of the contract as it was subsequently amended. Compass asked for a review of the public body‘s decision to give access to portions of the contract relating to the financial amounts and the timelines of some of the terms of the contract. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of Compass, but the information in the contract was found to be negotiated and not supplied. Compass also failed to substantiate that disclosure would cause economic harm. The three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not met. Public body ordered to disclose the rest of the contract.
F10-25 Jun 18, 2010 Ministry of Health Services Applicants requested records related to fines imposed on Maximus. Ministry denied access to some inf... more
Applicants requested records related to fines imposed on Maximus. Ministry denied access to some information under ss. 15(1)(l) and 17(1)(d) and (f). Exceptions found not to apply and Ministry ordered to disclose all withheld information.
F10-24 Jun 18, 2010 Ministry of Health Services FIPA and BCGEU requested access to the contract between the Province and Maximus for the delivery of... more
FIPA and BCGEU requested access to the contract between the Province and Maximus for the delivery of MSP and PharmaCare services. The Ministry disclosed the contract, withholding portions under ss. 15, 17 and 21. The application of s. 17 to certain items in the contract was the only issue at the inquiries and it was found not to apply.
F10-23 Jun 17, 2010 Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport The applicant asked the Ministry for any report about policy and regulatory options the Ministry was... more
The applicant asked the Ministry for any report about policy and regulatory options the Ministry was considering in relation to replacing the Sewage Disposal Regulation. The Ministry refused on the basis that disclosure of this information would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations. The Ministry was required to refuse disclosure of most of the records under s. 12(1) of FIPPA but was not required to withhold a small amount of information disclosure of which would not reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations.
F10-22 Jun 16, 2010 Victoria Police, Saanich Police, New Westminster Police, Port Moody Police,Vancouver Police, West Vancouver Police, Delta Police, Abbotsford Police The applicant requested the name, position and salary information for all officers and civilian pers... more
The applicant requested the name, position and salary information for all officers and civilian personnel from eight municipal police forces who made more than $75,000 during the most recent fiscal year. The police responded by providing a spreadsheet with the positions and salary information for all staff but withholding the names of officers below a certain rank and of all civilian staff under s. 15(1)(f), on the grounds that disclosure could endanger the life or safety of those individuals. The police were authorized by s. 15(1)(f) to refuse to disclose some but not all of the names.
F10-21 Jun 10, 2010 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Three applicants requested access to records related to termination of employees, severance paid and... more
Three applicants requested access to records related to termination of employees, severance paid and discipline imposed following an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers into ICBC’s Material Damage Training and Research Facility. An affected third party requested a review of ICBC’s decision to disclose severed records related to him. ICBC’s proposed application of s. 22 found to be correct except for amount of third party’s severance which is ordered disclosed for public scrutiny reasons
F10-20 Jun 10, 2010 Ministry of Environment The applicant requested all records related to the permit application of Clayoquot Wilderness Resort... more
The applicant requested all records related to the permit application of Clayoquot Wilderness Resorts to develop horseriding trails and campsites in Strathcona Park. The Ministry was authorized to withhold all records for which it claimed solicitor-client privilege and most of the records that it withheld under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The Ministry was required to disclose information from one record because it was a management directive and not a recommendation or advice under s. 13(1).
F08-22 Jun 10, 2010 Fraser Health Authority The public body was not authorized by s. 17(1) or required by s. 21(1) to refuse to disclose the pri... more
The public body was not authorized by s. 17(1) or required by s. 21(1) to refuse to disclose the pricing terms in an addendum and change order to a multi-year contract for housekeeping services in hospitals. The public body is ordered to provide access to the disputed information.
F10-19 Jun 7, 2010 Board of Education of School District No. 49 (Central Coast) Applicant requested records related to limitation expenditures. School District disclosed minutes of... more
Applicant requested records related to limitation expenditures. School District disclosed minutes of Board meetings in severed form and withheld several items it said related to legal accounts. Section 12(3)(b) found to apply to withheld information in minutes. Section 14 found to apply to lawyers’ bills of account and some other similar information. Section 14 found not to apply to total amounts of payments to law firms.
F10-18 Jun 7, 2010 Board of Education of School District 39 (Vancouver) Following the trial and conviction of a teacher for indecent assault and gross indecency, the School... more
Following the trial and conviction of a teacher for indecent assault and gross indecency, the School District commissioned Don Avison to conduct a review of its current policies and practices. The applicant requested a copy of the Avison Report that resulted. The School District released a severed version of the Report and withheld the rest, relying on several sections of FIPPA, including that it was protected by solicitor-client privilege. Legal professional privilege did not apply because Avison was not retained to act as a legal advisor to the School District. As a result, his report did not arise within a solicitor-client relationship.
F10-17 May 27, 2010 WorkSafeBC A complainant requested a review of her income calculation that WorkSafeBC used to determine her ben... more
A complainant requested a review of her income calculation that WorkSafeBC used to determine her benefit level for her accident claim. As part of the review process, WorkSafeBC disclosed her file to her employer, including three psychological reports. The complainant submitted that this contravened s. 33.1 of FIPPA because the reports did not relate to review of the income calculation matter. Disclosure was in compliance with s. 3(2) of FIPPA, which states that FIPPA does not limit information available by law to a party to a proceeding. The claim review process is a proceeding for s. 3(2) purposes, the employer was a party to that proceeding and s. 96.2(6) of the WCA required disclosure of records relating to the matter under review, which matter consists of the entire claim file.
F10-16 May 18, 2010 Ministry of Finance Two journalists requested records in an electronic format containing the names of government employe... more
Two journalists requested records in an electronic format containing the names of government employees along with their salary expenses, job title and department. The Ministry replied that the record could not be created from a machine readable record in its custody or control using its normal hardware and software and technical expertise. The Ministry was not required to create the records at issue in the inquiry.
F10-15 May 12, 2010 Office of the Premier FIPA requested records leading to and underlying Cabinet decisions regarding the restructuring of BC... more
FIPA requested records leading to and underlying Cabinet decisions regarding the restructuring of BC Ferries. The Premier?s Office disclosed a number of records, severing information under ss. 12(1) and 13(1). The Premier?s Office is found to have applied these exceptions properly.
F10-14 May 12, 2010 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant requested records compiled under s. 86 of the Gaming Control Act reporting suspected o... more
The applicant requested records compiled under s. 86 of the Gaming Control Act reporting suspected or actual illegal activities in registered gaming establishments and casinos. This Order follows Order F08-03 wherein the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the records under s. 15 or required to withhold them under s. 21 but was required withhold some personal information under s. 22. Following a request by the third parties, Order F08-07 was issued granting all parties the opportunity to make further argument concerning whether the names of casino employees which appear in the s. 86 reports should be withheld under s. 22. The third parties argued that the names of their employees, including the writers of the s. 86 reports, should not be disclosed. The Ministry must disclose the names of the s. 86 report writers and other employees acting in the course of their employment responsibilities. However, the Ministry is required to withhold the names of employees who are identified in the reports as being threatened or assaulted, who were subject to investigation or who were witnesses to an incident.
F10-13 Apr 30, 2010 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant requested audit records used in the preparation of a report by Josiah Wood QC concerni... more
The applicant requested audit records used in the preparation of a report by Josiah Wood QC concerning a review of the police complaints process. The Ministry refused the request on the basis that the records arose or were related to conduct complaints. The Ministry said s. 66.1 of the Police Act applied to exclude the application of FIPPA to the records. Section 66.1 of the Police Act applies to the majority of the records and as such they are not subject to FIPPA. A small number of records were ordered disclosed because they did not relate to conduct complaints.
F10-12 Apr 26, 2010 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General An applicant requested his personal information in a file relating to a coroner’s inquest. The Minis... more
An applicant requested his personal information in a file relating to a coroner’s inquest. The Ministry applied s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA to the only responsive records, which were the handwritten notes of jurors, on the grounds that the records were created by individuals acting in a quasi judicial capacity. The Ministry also argued the records were subject to s. 64(2)(c) of the Coroners Act, as the notes of a coroner. Section 64(2)(c) of the Coroners Act does not apply, as the notes or jurors are not the notes of a coroner. However s 3(1)(b) of FIPPA applies to the records as they are the personal notes of individuals acting in a quasi judicial capacity.
F10-11 Apr 1, 2010 Langara College A student requested records relating to an investigation that resulted in the College terminating he... more
A student requested records relating to an investigation that resulted in the College terminating her enrolment in her educational program. The College withheld all records in their entirety under s. 22(1). Section 22(1) does not apply to information solely about the applicant or information of which she was already aware from participating in the conversations and actions documented and from receiving other documentation from the College. Section 22(1) applies to some information solely about third parties and of which the applicant was not already aware.
F10-10 Mar 23, 2010 Ministry of Attorney General Two applicants requested a copy of the notes that a family justice counsellor created as part of a c... more
Two applicants requested a copy of the notes that a family justice counsellor created as part of a court-ordered Custody and Access Report for a family court proceeding involving the custody of the applicants’ grandchildren. The Ministry disclosed the notes of the interview with the applicants but withheld the notes of the interviews of third parties under s. 22(1). The Ministry also claimed that the records were subject to s. 3(1)(a) because, in its view, the notes related to a support service provided to the judge who ordered the report. The applicants reduced the scope of their request to exclude the personal information of third parties, except for the identities of individuals who made comments or expressed opinions about the applicants. The report and the notes do not relate to a support service provided to the judge and s. 3(1)(a) does not apply. Section 22(1) does not apply to information solely about the applicants or to the identities of individuals who made comments solely about the applicants that can be inferred from those comments. Ministry ordered to disclose this information.
F10-09 Mar 8, 2010 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry ... more
The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry disclosed the Verdict at Coroner‘s Inquest in each case, together with correspondence on the juries‘ recommendations. It withheld a number of records on the basis that they were excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act or, alternatively, under s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA. It withheld the rest of the records under ss. 15, 16(1)(b) and 22(1). Section 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act does not apply as it was not in effect at the time of the requests or Ministry‘s decision on access. Section 3(1)(b) applies to records related to coroners‘ inquest-related functions but not to other records, including those reflecting administrative activities. Section 3(1)(c) applies to a handful of records, although Ministry did not claim it. Ministry ordered to reconsider its decision to apply s. 16(1)(b) on the grounds that it failed to exercise discretion. It was not necessary to consider s. 15. Section 22(1) found to apply to many but not all other records. Ministry ordered to disclose certain records to which ss. 3(1)(b) and 22(1) do not apply.
F10-08 Mar 8, 2010 Northern Health Authority In response to the applicant’s request for access to her personal information, the NHA disclosed a n... more
In response to the applicant’s request for access to her personal information, the NHA disclosed a number of records and withheld other records and information under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA. It also said that s. 51 of the Evidence Act prohibited disclosure of other records. Sections 13(1) and 22(1) are found to apply. The NHA is ordered to prepare a summary of the applicant’s personal information under s. 22(5) of FIPPA. Section 51 of the Evidence Act is found not to apply and the NHA is ordered to process two pages under FIPPA
P10-02 Mar 3, 2010 Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1004 The applicant, a union member involved in a grievance, requested access to his own personal informat... more
The applicant, a union member involved in a grievance, requested access to his own personal information from the union. The union is authorized to refuse to disclose some information because it is privileged to the union‘s benefit, but the union is not authorized to refuse disclosure of other information under litigation privilege or Wigmore privilege. Nor does s. 23(3)(c) apply in the circumstances.
F10-07 Mar 3, 2010 Vancouver Police Department An applicant requested his personal information in the custody of the VPD. The VPD responded by rele... more
An applicant requested his personal information in the custody of the VPD. The VPD responded by releasing copies of three police occurrence reports involving the applicant, but withholding some information under ss. 15(1)(a), (f) and (l) on the grounds that disclosure could harm a law enforcement matter and the security of courthouses. It also withheld information provided in confidence by the RCMP under s. 16(1)(b) and information that could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or mental or physical health of others under s. 19(1)(a). As well, it withheld the personal information of third parties collected as part of the investigations on the three files under s. 22(1). The VPD was authorized to refuse to disclose information under ss. 15(1), 16(1) and 19(1). The VPD was required to withhold information under s. 22(1).
F10-06 Mar 1, 2010 Ministry of Agriculture and Lands The applicant requested information from the Ministry relating to information gathered from fish far... more
The applicant requested information from the Ministry relating to information gathered from fish farms under its Fish Health Audit and Surveillance Program. The Ministry refused the request on the basis the fish farms supplied the information in confidence and disclosure could subject the fish farms to various harms if disclosed. Disclosure of the information is ordered. Fish carcasses turned over to the Ministry for testing did not constitute the supply of information. The fish farms did not supply other information explicitly or implicitly in confidence and in the event it did, the Ministry failed to prove that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm.
F10-05 Feb 18, 2010 Insurance Company of British Columbia The applicant, a journalist, sought disclosure of ?bonuses paid to ICBC executives? during a specifi... more
The applicant, a journalist, sought disclosure of ?bonuses paid to ICBC executives? during a specified period. ICBC refused under s. 22, saying this would unreasonably invade the employees‘ privacy because the bonus amounts were essentially evaluations of the employees‘ performance. ICBC is not required to withhold this information. It is information ?about the…remuneration? of the employees and therefore s. 22(4)(e) provides that its disclosure would not be an ?unreasonable invasion? of the employees‘ ?personal privacy?. The desirability of public scrutiny outweighs any presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy on the basis that the information was about employment history or performance.
P10-01 Feb 10, 2010 Host International Of Canada Ltd A restaurant required the complainant to present identification before serving him alcohol, because ... more
A restaurant required the complainant to present identification before serving him alcohol, because the parent organization had a policy of requiring identification from all customers. The complainant felt that this collection of personal information was unnecessary because he was sixty years old and, from his appearance, clearly of legal drinking age. The collection of his personal information was not necessary for the purposes of serving him and contravened s. 7(2) of PIPA. The organization is required to change its policy with respect to all franchises in British Columbia, so as not to require identification from customers who are clearly of legal drinking age.
F10-04 Feb 10, 2010 Ministry of the Attorney General The applicant requested records Legislative Counsel used to complete the Revised Statutes of BC, 199... more
The applicant requested records Legislative Counsel used to complete the Revised Statutes of BC, 1996. The Ministry withheld them claiming solicitor-client privilege. The applicant argued that Chief Legislative Counsel’s role in preparing revisions to provincial statutes under the Statute Revision Act was not that of a solicitor to the provincial government. Legal professional privilege applies to the requested records and the Ministry was authorized to withhold them.
F10-03 Feb 10, 2010 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Applicant requested copy of an unsolicited letter to the Ministry about applicant's possible health ... more
Applicant requested copy of an unsolicited letter to the Ministry about applicant's possible health problem that could affect his driving ability. Ministry released letter to applicant, but severed personal information that would reveal identity of the letter's author. Ministry required to withhold that personal information under s. 22(1).
F10-02 Jan 7, 2010 Ministry of Attorney General The Ministry made successful representations to the Attorney General of Canada urging it to stay pro... more
The Ministry made successful representations to the Attorney General of Canada urging it to stay proceedings of a private prosecution launched against it under the federal Fisheries Act. The applicant, an environmental group aiding in the private prosecution, sought access to the records between the Ministry and the Attorney General of Canada concerning the stay decision. The Ministry refused on the basis that solicitor-client privilege protected the records. Legal professional privilege does not apply because the records were communications between a lawyer and a third party. Litigation privilege, if it existed, expired because litigation between the parties ended and the possibility of future related litigation was entirely speculative.
F10-01 Jan 7, 2010 Grearter Vancouver Regional District The GVRD made successful representations to AG Canada urging it to stay proceedings of a private pro... more
The GVRD made successful representations to AG Canada urging it to stay proceedings of a private prosecution launched against it under the federal Fisheries Act. The applicant, an environmental group aiding in the private prosecution, later sought access to the records between the GVRD and the AG Canada concerning the stay decision. The GVRD refused on the basis that the records were protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would reveal information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion under s. 15(1)(g) of FIPPA. Disclosure of the records is ordered. Legal professional privilege does not apply because the records were communications between a lawyer and a third party. Litigation privilege, if it existed, expired because litigation between the parties ended and the possibility of future related litigation was entirely speculative. Section 15(1)(g) of FIPPA did not apply to discretion exercised by federal prosecutors.
P09-02 Dec 2, 2009 Shoal Point Strata Council Residents of a strata condominium complained about aspects of the use of video surveillance in the b... more
Residents of a strata condominium complained about aspects of the use of video surveillance in the building. Section 14 of PIPA permits the use of video surveillance on exterior doors and in the parkade for the purposes of preventing unauthorized entry, theft or the threat to personal safety or damage to property, but not for bylaw enforcement. Section 14 does not permit the use of video surveillance in the pool area or outside the fitness room. Nor is it appropriate to provide access to the video surveillance system to residential units through the television cable system, or to conduct a routine review of the previous day‘s footage, in the absence of a complaint or evidence of unauthorized entry, theft or the threat to personal safety or damage to property. Shoal Point failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to provide notice of collection of personal information in accordance with s. 10(1) through the failure to provide details of the signs posted to notify individuals of video surveillance.
F09-27 Nov 25, 2009 Fraser Health Authority CUPE requested records related to the Surrey Outpatient Facility project. Section 12(1) applies to t... more
CUPE requested records related to the Surrey Outpatient Facility project. Section 12(1) applies to the withheld information.
F09-26 Nov 25, 2009 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure CUPE requested information on the William R. Bennett Bridge and the Sea to Sky Highway projects. Sec... more
CUPE requested information on the William R. Bennett Bridge and the Sea to Sky Highway projects. Section 12(1) applies to the withheld information.
F09-25 Nov 24, 2009 Provincial Health Services Authority A doctor sought records relating to an harassment investigation about him that resulted in the suspe... more
A doctor sought records relating to an harassment investigation about him that resulted in the suspension of his hospital privileges. The PHSA argued solicitor-client privilege applied to most of the information and therefore withheld it. Disclosing the remainder, the PHSA contended, would result in the unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy, contrary to s. 22. Legal professional privilege applied to those records for which s. 14 was asserted, and the PHSA was required to withhold the balance of the disputed information under s. 22 of FIPPA.
F09-24 Nov 19, 2009 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant requested the résumés of all regional and chief coroners since 1967. The Ministry with... more
The applicant requested the résumés of all regional and chief coroners since 1967. The Ministry withheld the records under s. 22(1), on the grounds that disclosure of the employment and educational history of the third parties would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to withhold the requested records.
F09-23 Nov 18, 2009 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority The VCHA investigated abuse allegations concerning an elderly woman. Four family members related to ... more
The VCHA investigated abuse allegations concerning an elderly woman. Four family members related to the elderly woman requested records from the VCHA about themselves because of concerns they were the subject of these allegations. In considering all of the relevant circumstances, the VCHA is required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 22 of FIPPA. Though the Adult Guardianship Act did not trump FIPPA, VCHA’s obligations under that Act were relevant to determining that the disputed records were provided in confidence.
F09-22 Nov 12, 2009 The Board of Education of School District 35 (Langley) Third party contractor asked for a review of the public body’s decision that s. 21(1) did not requir... more
Third party contractor asked for a review of the public body’s decision that s. 21(1) did not require it to refuse to give access to part of the contractors winning proposal in an RFP competition for vending machine services. Section 21(1) requires the public body to withhold part, but not all, of the proposal.
F09-21 Nov 10, 2009 Ministry of Education The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment stu... more
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.
F09-20 Nov 6, 2009 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested access to records related to the “police involved shooting” in 2004 of a nam... more
The applicant requested access to records related to the “police involved shooting” in 2004 of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and argued that additional records were excluded under s. 66.1 of the Police Act. It also released some records. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1). Certain other pages are excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 66.1 of the Police Act.
F09-19 Nov 6, 2009 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested access to records related to the 1989 death of a named individual. The VPD i... more
The applicant requested access to records related to the 1989 death of a named individual. The VPD initially withheld all records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and disclosed a few pages. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
F09-18 Nov 6, 2009 Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested access to records related to the VPD's homicide investigation of the 1992 de... more
The applicant requested access to records related to the VPD's homicide investigation of the 1992 death of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b) of FIPPA. It later added other exceptions and disclosed some records. The VPD is required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
F09-17 Oct 28, 2009 Ministry of Health Service The Applicant sought records relating to the third party’s business dealings with the Ministry, incl... more
The Applicant sought records relating to the third party’s business dealings with the Ministry, including contracts, research agreements and correspondence. The third party objected to their disclosure under s. 21 of FIPPA. The Ministry failed to prove that requested records were confidentially supplied or that their disclosure would harm the business interests of the third party.
F09-16 Oct 27, 2009 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority An applicant requested all records related to her application for, and denial of, employment as a nu... more
An applicant requested all records related to her application for, and denial of, employment as a nurse, including complete information related to references. VCHA refused access under s. 22(1) to references on the grounds that the third parties supplied them in confidence in accordance with s. 22(3)(h). VCHA’s decision to refuse access under s. 22(1) is confirmed.
F09-15 Oct 7, 2009 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority The applicant requested salary and severance information concerning SkyTrain employees for the years... more
The applicant requested salary and severance information concerning SkyTrain employees for the years 2002 to 2005. Section 22(4)(e) does not apply to the requested information in this case. However, TransLink, as the public body responsible for the information, is required to disclose it following consideration of all relevant factors under s. 22, including the need for public scrutiny.
F09-14 Aug 28, 2009 City of Fernie An applicant requested plans from the City of Fernie submitted by a third party to obtain a permit t... more
An applicant requested plans from the City of Fernie submitted by a third party to obtain a permit to build a house. The third party argued that disclosing the plans would unreasonably invade his privacy and result in harm to his business interests. Those arguments were without merit and the City was required to disclose the plans. The information in the plans, consisting primarily of external drawings of the house, was for the most part already apparent by visual observation of the property.
F09-13 Aug 11, 2009 Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. Applicant requested access to the concession agreement for the Canada Line rapid transit project. Ca... more
Applicant requested access to the concession agreement for the Canada Line rapid transit project. Canada Line disclosed the concession agreement in severed form, withholding information under ss. 15, 16, 17 and 21. Canada Line and InTransit BC did not establish a reasonable expectation of harm flowing from disclosure. All withheld information is ordered disclosed.
F09-12 Jul 29, 2009 BC Pavilion Corporation The Vancouver Sun requested any reports on the long term viability of BC Place. PavCo’s decision to ... more
The Vancouver Sun requested any reports on the long term viability of BC Place. PavCo’s decision to apply s. 13(1) to information in a 2006 report on infrastructure improvements is confirmed.
P09-01 Jul 21, 2009 Cruz Ventures Ltd. (doing business as Wild Coyote Club) Section 7(2) of PIPA does not authorize the organization to require customers of its licensed estab... more
Section 7(2) of PIPA does not authorize the organization to require customers of its licensed establishment to consent to collection of the scope of personal information that the organization at present collects through use of the driver?s licence scanning system in issue here. Nor is it appropriate to collect that scope of personal information in the circumstances.
F09-11 Jun 22, 2009 Ministry of Labour The applicant requested the Ministry waive the estimated fees for records he said related to a matte... more
The applicant requested the Ministry waive the estimated fees for records he said related to a matter of public interest. The applicant’s helpful conduct, combined with the unsatisfactory manner in which the Ministry prepared its fee estimate and responded to the applicant’s request, were circumstances resulting in the estimated fee being excused.
F09-10 May 20, 2009 Office of the Premier Re-opening of Order F08-18 to consider s. 12(7), which was enacted in 2002 but only first published ... more
Re-opening of Order F08-18 to consider s. 12(7), which was enacted in 2002 but only first published after Order F08-18 was issued and before the time for compliance by the public body had expired. New subsection does not affect the outcome in Order F08-18 nor, alternatively, does reconsideration of the interpretation of “committee” in s. 12(1) in Order 02-38. Decision in Order F08-18 stands.
F09-09 May 20, 2009 Office of the Premier Re-opening of Order F08-17 to consider s. 12(7), which was enacted in 2002 but only first published ... more
Re-opening of Order F08-17 to consider s. 12(7), which was enacted in 2002 but only first published after Order F08-17 was issued and before the time for compliance by the public body had expired. New subsection does not affect the outcome in Order F08-17. Decision in Order F08-17 stands.
F09-08 Apr 30, 2009 Corporation of the Village of Burns Lake Several entities denied a number of requests for records by the applicants on the grounds they are n... more
Several entities denied a number of requests for records by the applicants on the grounds they are not public bodies under FIPPA. All of the entities in issue are found to be public bodies because they are owned by, and their officers are appointed under the authority of, a local government body. They must therefore respond to the applicants? requests.
F09-07 Apr 30, 2009 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him... more
Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.
F09-06 Apr 21, 2009 University of British Columbia The applicant requested records from UBC relating to seven entities. UBC was able to provide some re... more
The applicant requested records from UBC relating to seven entities. UBC was able to provide some records and a few others were publicly available but for the most part UBC argued that the entities had custody and control of the requested records; it did not. UBC is found to have control of the requested records with respect to three of the entities and is ordered to respond to the applicant in respect of those access requests. All three bodies were entities created and owned 100% by UBC and accountable to it.
F09-05 Apr 16, 2009 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant requested a variety of records dating back five years. The Law Society issued fee esti... more
The applicant requested a variety of records dating back five years. The Law Society issued fee estimates totalling just over $117,000 for responding to the requests. The applicant complained to this Office about the amounts of the fee estimates and about the Law Society’s “delay” in responding. Mediation led to the consolidation of the requests and a revised fee estimate of $11,000. The applicant paid the estimated fee and the Law Society disclosed records in phases over ten months. The final processing costs were about $27,000. The applicant remained dissatisfied with the amount of the fee and with the pace of disclosure and these matters proceeded to inquiry. The applicant was found to be a “commercial applicant”. The Law Society was found to have included certain charges which were not allowable under FIPPA or its Regulation and was ordered to re-calculate the fee. The revised fee was reduced by 20% because, among other things, the Law Society did not take steps earlier to expedite processing of the request.
F09-04 Apr 2, 2009 Ministry of Finance Section 25 does not require the Ministry to disclose information in an outsource service contract in... more
Section 25 does not require the Ministry to disclose information in an outsource service contract in the public interest. Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose information as claimed by the third-party contractor. The Ministry is obliged to respond to the applicant on the applicability of all exceptions to disclosure, not just s. 21(1), since the third-party review requested by the contractor froze only the Ministry’s duty to respond to the access request for the information that was the subject of the third-party review.
F09-03 Feb 19, 2009 Abbotsford Police Department The applicant requested access to records from the APD which disclosed them with some information se... more
The applicant requested access to records from the APD which disclosed them with some information severed under s. 22. APD is found to have applied s. 22 properly to some information and ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22 does not apply, as it is the applicant’s own personal information and information about APD employees in a work context.
F09-02 Jan 27, 2009 Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services FIPA requested access to stakeholders’ comments on proposed FIPPA amendments. Ministry disclosed som... more
FIPA requested access to stakeholders’ comments on proposed FIPPA amendments. Ministry disclosed some records in full where stakeholders had no concerns with disclosure and disclosed other records in severed form where stakeholders did have such concerns. It applied s. 13(1) to the withheld portions saying the comments were advice or recommendations to government on proposed courses of action. Section 13(1) found to apply to most of withheld information. Ministry found not to have exercised discretion properly and ordered to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1).
F09-01 Jan 22, 2009 Office of the Premier The applicant sought briefing materials for the Premier for Question Period during a specified legis... more
The applicant sought briefing materials for the Premier for Question Period during a specified legislative session. Section 13(1) authorizes the Office of the Premier to withhold the information as advice to the Premier.
F08-21 Dec 18, 2008 Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development The applicant requested records from a government program that nominates foreign workers for acceler... more
The applicant requested records from a government program that nominates foreign workers for accelerated immigration. The Ministry disclosed the application forms, position descriptions, required qualifications and job offer letters but withheld some information in those records under s. 21 and s. 22. The test for s. 21 was not met. Some information must be withheld under s. 22 to prevent unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some of the information was not “personal information” and must be disclosed.
F08-20 Dec 16, 2008 Vancouver Police Board The Board is not required to refuse disclosure of the target silhouette that the applicant requested... more
The Board is not required to refuse disclosure of the target silhouette that the applicant requested. Given the extensive publicity surrounding the record and its contents, its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the third party’s personal privacy. Even without that publicity, in light of the contents of the inscription, disclosure of the record would not unreasonably invade the third party’s personal privacy
F08-19 Dec 12, 2008 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The applicant requested personal information from two ICBC claims files. ICBC disclosed many records... more
The applicant requested personal information from two ICBC claims files. ICBC disclosed many records but withheld some in whole or part. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s application of legal advice privilege and, as lawsuits were ongoing, litigation privilege (s. 14). ICBC’s application of s. 22 (personal information of third parties) was confirmed for some but not all information and some information is ordered disclosed. ICBC showed reasonable expectation of financial harm for reserve information but not other information related to its defence in the lawsuits (s. 17) and this other information is ordered disclosed. ICBC properly withheld some information that was advice and recommendations it received from its claims examiner and a physician (s. 13). ICBC is ordered to reconsider its decision to refuse access to CPIC information under s. 16(1)(b)
P08-04 Dec 5, 2008 Cross King Crauford Physical Therapist Corporation Two complainants said the $25.00 fee charged by a physical therapy clinic in addition to photocopy c... more
Two complainants said the $25.00 fee charged by a physical therapy clinic in addition to photocopy charges to provide copies of their clinical records was excessive and should be reduced or excused. The clinic set the fee based on its estimate of its cost for staff time and copying, following the guideline from its professional association. The adjudicator found that the fee was not reasonable. The circumstances were appropriate to order a partial refund.
P08-03 Dec 5, 2008 Ironwood Chiropractic and Massage Therapy Clinic Two complainants said the $105.00 fee charged by a chiropractor in addition to photocopy charges to ... more
Two complainants said the $105.00 fee charged by a chiropractor in addition to photocopy charges to provide copies of their clinical records was excessive and should be reduced or excused. The chiropractor set the fee based on his past practice that followed his professional association’s fee guidelines. The adjudicator found that the fee was not reasonable. The circumstances were appropriate to order a partial refund.
F09-28 Nov 5, 2008 Ministry of Attorney General Applicant requested access to Crown counsel records about contacts between the Criminal Justice Bran... more
Applicant requested access to Crown counsel records about contacts between the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry and his defence lawyers. The Ministry was authorized to withhold the records under s. 15(1)(g) as they relate to and were used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
F08-18 Nov 5, 2008 Office of the Premier Applicant requested access to agendas of government caucus committees from 2006. Premier’s Office di... more
Applicant requested access to agendas of government caucus committees from 2006. Premier’s Office disclosed the agendas in severed form, withholding information under s. 12(1). Withheld information found not to fall under s. 12(1) as it consists of subjects or topics of discussion, disclosure of which would not reveal the “substance of deliberations” of Cabinet.
F08-17 Nov 5, 2008 Office of the Premier Applicant requested access to agendas of government caucus committees from 2006. Premier’s Office di... more
Applicant requested access to agendas of government caucus committees from 2006. Premier’s Office disclosed the agendas in severed form, withholding information under s. 12(1). Withheld information found not to fall under s. 12(1) as it consists of subjects or topics of discussion, disclosure of which would not reveal the “substance of deliberations” of Cabinet.
F08-16 Oct 29, 2008 The Board of Education of School District No. 68 Applicants made access requests to a school district for records relating to complaints they had mad... more
Applicants made access requests to a school district for records relating to complaints they had made about their respective children’s teacher. On reconsideration of Order 04-04 and Order 04-05, the school district’s investigations into the allegations against the teacher were not investigations into a possible violation of law under s. 22(3)(b). The applicants were not entitled to information the disclosure of which would reveal the substance of in camera deliberations by the school district under s. 12(3)(b). They were also not entitled to personal information about the teacher, the disclosure of which would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy under s. 22 and which could not reasonably be severed under s. 4(2). The applicants were otherwise entitled to: non-personal information; their own complaint information against the teacher; and the applicants’ or their children’s personal information, including the statements or opinions of the teacher or others about the applicants and their children and their interactions with the teacher.
F08-15 Sep 4, 2008 College of Psychologists of British Columbia The applicant requested records from the College relating to the investigation of a complaint the ap... more
The applicant requested records from the College relating to the investigation of a complaint the applicant made against a psychologist. The College is required to refuse disclosure of personal information because it would be an unreasonable invasion of the psychologist’s personal privacy. The personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law and also related to the occupational history of the psychologist. The applicant did not rebut the presumptions of unreasonable invasion of personal privacy thus raised.
F08-14 Jul 16, 2008 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Applicant requested records confirming certain types of personal information regarding six individua... more
Applicant requested records confirming certain types of personal information regarding six individuals in connection with a neighbouring property. ICBC found to have properly refused access to this information under s. 22.
F08-13 Jun 27, 2008 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Applicant requested video footage taken of her while she was held in custody at the Vancouver City J... more
Applicant requested video footage taken of her while she was held in custody at the Vancouver City Jail. The public body refused access on the basis of s. 15(1)(f), s. 15(1)(l) and s. 22. The public body argued that s. 22 required it to withhold information relating to other individuals in custody, but not that relating to officers working at the Jail. Third-party officers whose images were on the videos objected to the disclosure. There was no persuasive evidence that releasing the videos which reveal incidents of interest to the applicant would endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or harm the security system of the jail. The public body is required to provide access to some of the video footage, but must withhold information which would identify other individuals held in custody. The fact that the videos will identify the third parties in their employment capacity does not render disclosure of the videos an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
F08-12 Jun 19, 2008 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party a... more
The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party and a private company the two had previously shared an interest in. BC Hydro released some records but withheld some in whole or part. BC Hydro was required to disclose some of the records. BC Hydro was also authorized to withhold some of the records under ss. 13(1) and 14 and was required to withhold others under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
P08-02 Jun 11, 2008 Bowman Employment Services Inc. The applicant complained that the fee which the organization sought to charge for providing copies o... more
The applicant complained that the fee which the organization sought to charge for providing copies of records containing the applicant’s personal information was not reasonable and should be reduced or excused. The organization had provided a fee estimate based on the applicant’s original request for her complete file and another fee estimate based on a narrower request. The second fee estimate is not minimal and is ordered reduced.
F08-11 Jun 11, 2008 Ministry of Health The applicant requested a copy of the Ministry of Health’s audit report of the Medical On-Call/Avail... more
The applicant requested a copy of the Ministry of Health’s audit report of the Medical On-Call/Availability Program. The Ministry disclosed the report in severed form, withholding portions of the report under ss. 15(1)(l) and 17(1)(d) and (f). At the inquiry, the applicant attempted to raise s. 25 but was not permitted to do so. The Ministry dropped s. 15(1)(l) and did not address s. 17(1)(f). The Ministry was found not to be authorized to withhold the information under s. 17(1)(d) and is ordered to disclose the information it withheld under that section.
F08-10 May 21, 2008 The Board of Education of School District No. 69 (Qualicum) Parents requested access to personal information about themselves and their minor child. School Dist... more
Parents requested access to personal information about themselves and their minor child. School District disclosed most of the requested records, withholding some information under ss. 21 and 22. School District ordered to disclose a few phrases of personal information of one applicant as s. 22 does not apply to it. Section 21 is found not to apply to five pages of records and School District ordered to disclose portions from these pages which are the applicants’ personal information.
F08-09 May 5, 2008 Ministry of Attorney General The Ministry was authorized under s. 19(1)(a) to refuse to disclose information to the applicant, wh... more
The Ministry was authorized under s. 19(1)(a) to refuse to disclose information to the applicant, who sought information about his access to courthouses in the province. Disclosure of the withheld information could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or mental or physical health of others. The Ministry’s argument under s. 19(1)(b) amounted to a chilling argument which did not establish a reasonable expectation that disclosure would interfere with public safety. It is not necessary to deal with ss. 15 or 22.
F08-08 Apr 21, 2008 College of Psychologists of British Columbia The applicant requested access to a citation which the College had issued against the third party ps... more
The applicant requested access to a citation which the College had issued against the third party psychologist but later withdrew. The College decided to disclose the citation in severed form. The third party requested a review of this decision, saying the entire record should be withheld. The information in dispute falls under s. 22(3)(d). While ss. 22(2)(e) and (g) apply to some degree, the presumption in s. 22(3)(d) is overcome by the factors in ss. 22(2)(a) and (c) which favour disclosure. The College is required to give access to the record as severed.
P08-01 Apr 16, 2008 Klahanie Housing Co-Operative The applicant requested his personal information contained in two letters under the control of the K... more
The applicant requested his personal information contained in two letters under the control of the Klahanie Housing Co-operative. The Co-operative was required to refuse disclosure under ss. 23(4)(c) and (d) of PIPA.
F08-07 Mar 20, 2008 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The third-party casino operators requested further consideration of one aspect of the s. 22 guidelin... more
The third-party casino operators requested further consideration of one aspect of the s. 22 guidelines contained in Order F08-03. Further submissions are permitted on that issue. In the meantime, the Ministry must disclose the s. 86 reports, as ordered in Order F08-03, with the exception of the information required to be withheld according to the guidelines in Order F08-03 and the names of casino employees acting in a professional or employment capacity, the disclosure of which remains unresolved pending further consideration of s. 22 arising from Order F08-03.
F08-06 Mar 4, 2008 Ministry of Community Services The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, requested records re... more
The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, requested records relating to a dispute between himself and his former employer about his appointment to the council of a self-governing professional body. The Ministry of Community Services released a number of records, some of which it severed because, it argued, they revealed advice or recommendations under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The Ministry of Community Services is authorized to withhold some of the information under s. 13(1) and ordered to disclose other information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.
F08-05 Mar 4, 2008 Ministry of Small Business and Revenue The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry, requested records relating to a dispute between hi... more
The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry, requested records relating to a dispute between himself and his former employer about his appointment to the council of a self-governing professional body. The Ministry released a number of records, some of which it severed because, the Ministry argued, they revealed advice or recommendations under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The Ministry is authorized to withhold some of the information under s. 13(1) and ordered to disclose other information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.
F08-04 Feb 1, 2008 University of British Columbia The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mis... more
The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mistakenly cut down by UBC employees. UBC released the report, but withheld the names and positions of the employees who were involved in the incident and those who were interviewed in the investigation. UBC is required by s. 22 of FIPPA to withhold the names of the employees
F08-03 Jan 31, 2008 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant sought access to Gaming Control Act reports from casino operators relating to suspecte... more
The applicant sought access to Gaming Control Act reports from casino operators relating to suspected or actual criminal activity within casinos. The Ministry refused access to any information, citing ss. 15(1)(a) and (l) and s. 21 of FIPPA. The Ministry is not authorized by s. 15 or required by s. 21 to withhold access to the records, but is required under s. 22 to withhold some third-party personal information in them. The Ministry is required to sever that personal information and release the remainder of the records to the applicant within 60 days
F08-02 Jan 8, 2008 University of Victoria Applicant requested access to a document the third party created to describe his workplace interacti... more
Applicant requested access to a document the third party created to describe his workplace interactions with the applicant. Section 22 found to apply to the third party’s personal information in the record and UVic is required to withhold it. It is not reasonable to sever the record as the personal information of applicant and third party is intertwined. This is not an appropriate case to summarize the record.
F08-01 Jan 8, 2008 Simon Fraser University The applicant requested information relating to two “spin-off companies” in the possession of SFU’s ... more
The applicant requested information relating to two “spin-off companies” in the possession of SFU’s University/Industry Liaison office. SFU initially took the position that the records were in its custody and control but later changed its position and said that the records were within the custody and control of its wholly-owned subsidiary, SFUV. The records are within SFU’s control and SFU is ordered to discharge its obligations as a public body to the applicant and to third parties.
F07-25 Dec 17, 2007 Public Guardian and Trustee The applicant requested records relating to a sale of real property conducted by the Public Guardian... more
The applicant requested records relating to a sale of real property conducted by the Public Guardian and Trustee over 30 years ago on behalf of a client who is now deceased. Most of the records in dispute do not contain personal information. In particular, information about the value of a piece of real property is not personal information. The relatively small amount of personal information that is contained in the records relates to persons who are members of the applicant’s family and are now deceased. The records are quite old, and the personal information is not of a particularly sensitive nature. In the circumstances, s. 22(1) does not require the PGT to refuse the applicant access.
F07-24 Dec 11, 2007 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia The applicant requested a copy of a letter a doctor wrote to the College in response to the applican... more
The applicant requested a copy of a letter a doctor wrote to the College in response to the applicant’s complaint about her. The College disclosed part but not all of the letter, withholding some on the basis that doing so could result in harm to the safety of a third party and would constitute an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. The College was authorized to refuse disclosure under s. 19(1)(a).
P07-02 Nov 29, 2007 655369 B.C. Ltd. The organization, through one of its employees, improperly disclosed the complainant’s employee pers... more
The organization, through one of its employees, improperly disclosed the complainant’s employee personal information to a co-worker, who then disclosed it to the union. The organization is ordered not to disclose such employee personal information in such circumstances in the future.
F07-23 Nov 29, 2007 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant requested access to submissions by funeral home operators relating to potential change... more
The applicant requested access to submissions by funeral home operators relating to potential changes to funeral laws and regulations. The Ministry is not required by s. 25(1) of FIPPA to disclose the records in the public interest. The Ministry is required by s. 12 of FIPPA to refuse the applicant access to the information severed from the records.
F07-22 Nov 14, 2007 British Columbia College of Chiropractors The applicant requested a copy of a letter a chiropractor sent to the College in response to the app... more
The applicant requested a copy of a letter a chiropractor sent to the College in response to the applicant’s complaint about him. The College refused to disclose the letter because it said that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of the chiropractor’s personal privacy. The College is not required to refuse disclosure of the letter. It contains significant amounts of the applicant’s own personal information to which she is entitled to have access. Nor would disclosure of the remainder of the letter unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the third party chiropractor. The applicant already clearly knows much of that information and its disclosure is desirable to subject the College to public scrutiny.
F07-20 Nov 6, 2007 Office of the Chief Coroner Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Applicant requested copy of his son’s suicide note. Public body denied access under s. 22. Relevant ... more
Applicant requested copy of his son’s suicide note. Public body denied access under s. 22. Relevant circumstances, including applicant’s wish for “closure”, do not rebut the presumed invasion of third-party privacy. Public body is ordered to deny access to the personal information in the note.
P07-01 Oct 24, 2007 Finning Canada Decision P07-01 declined to complete the inquiry or make an order because the complaint about Finnin... more
Decision P07-01 declined to complete the inquiry or make an order because the complaint about Finning’s collection of driver’s licence record abstracts from existing and prospective employees did not concern any information about the complainant. On reconsideration, the complaint is dismissed under s. 52(1) because no personal information of the complainant was involved and the complaint and evidence does not, in any case, establish or raise reasonable grounds to believe that Finning was not complying with PIPA.
F07-19 Sep 25, 2007 British Columbia Archives The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives relating to events that occurred ... more
The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives relating to events that occurred at Woodlands School in the early 1960’s. The BC Archives properly withheld the requested records under s. 22(1) and was not required to release them under s. 25(1)(b).
F07-18 Sep 24, 2007 University of British Columbia The complainant, a former employee of UBC, was terminated from his employment based, in part, on all... more
The complainant, a former employee of UBC, was terminated from his employment based, in part, on allegations regarding his personal internet use. UBC had utilized log file reports and computer spyware for the purposes of tracking the complainant’s internet activity and the complainant alleged this collection of his personal information was contrary to s. 26 and s. 27. UBC’s policy allowed for some personal internet use and the complainant had never tried to hide his internet activity from his supervisor. The collection was not authorized under s. 26 because it was not necessary for the management of the complainant’s employment, given that UBC had never raised any concern about the complainant’s internet activity with the complainant. The manner of collection was also contrary to s. 27, since the information was required to be directly collected from the complainant and was in fact directly collected from him, but the requirements of advance notice were not met. As a result, both the collection of information and the manner of collection were contrary to UBC’s legal obligations. The complainant asked for an order that the records containing the disputed information be destroyed. The arbitrator hearing the complainant’s termination grievance had ordered the records produced at the grievance hearing. While in most cases of improper collection an order for destruction or requiring UBC not to use the documents would be issued, in this case, given the outstanding production order of the arbitrator, UBC was ordered not to make any use of the information other than as required to enable the grievance arbitrator to make a decision on admissibility.
F07-17 Jul 31, 2007 Ministry of Forests and Range The applicant, an employee of the Ministry, requested access to his personal records. The Ministry r... more
The applicant, an employee of the Ministry, requested access to his personal records. The Ministry released some records and refused access to others, relying on s. 13(1). The records related to advice provided to the Ministry by the Public Service Agency regarding the applicant’s request for accommodation. The applicant argued that the information was not advice for the purposes of s. 13(1) or, alternatively, that it fell within the exceptions to s. 13(1) set out in ss. 13(2)(a), 13(2)(d) or 13(2)(n). The Ministry is ordered to release some information which relates only to a request for advice. The Ministry is entitled to refuse access to the remaining information under s. 13(1). Because the Ministry did not demonstrate that it had exercised its discretion in refusing access under s. 13(1) taking into account all relevant considerations, it is required to reconsider its decision in that regard.
F07-16 Jul 30, 2007 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant sought the hospital records of his infant child. The PHSA properly denied access to th... more
The applicant sought the hospital records of his infant child. The PHSA properly denied access to the records on the basis that the applicant was a non-custodial parent.
F07-15 Jul 30, 2007 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority VCHA was not authorized by s. 17(1) or required by s. 21(1) to refuse to give access to the price sc... more
VCHA was not authorized by s. 17(1) or required by s. 21(1) to refuse to give access to the price schedule or the penalty provision in a contract for cleaning services in health care facilities. It is ordered to provide access to the entire contract, a presentation to its board of directors and its business case for the privatization of cleaning services.
F07-14 Jul 10, 2007 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Min... more
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld information and records under ss. 12, 13, 14, 17, 21 and 22. Ministry found to have properly withheld information under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and some information it withheld under s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information it withheld under ss. 14 and 21(1).
F07-13 Jul 10, 2007 Ministry of Attorney General Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Min... more
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld information and records under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16(1), 17(1) and 22(1). Ministry found to have properly withheld information under ss. 12(1) and 13(1) and, with some exceptions, s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information it withheld under s. 16(1) and s. 14.
F07-12 Jul 10, 2007 Ministry of Finance Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Min... more
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22. Ministry required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1) and s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 17 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Ministry also ordered to conduct another search for responsive records.
F07-11 Jul 10, 2007 Ministry of Agriculture and Lands Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Pub... more
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Public body disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16, 17 and 22. Public body required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1). With some exceptions, public body authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Public body ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 14 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
F05-38 Jul 10, 2007 Workers' Compensation Board Applicant requested records in WCB’s legal department file. Records are protected by solicitor-clien... more
Applicant requested records in WCB’s legal department file. Records are protected by solicitor-client privilege.
F07-10 Jun 26, 2007 The Board of Education of School District No. 75 (Mission) In 2004, the Board began requiring applicants for teaching positions to complete an on-line assessme... more
In 2004, the Board began requiring applicants for teaching positions to complete an on-line assessment developed and administered in the United States. The collection of personal information through the assessment is not expressly authorized by or under an Act, but it does, with the exception of social insurance numbers, relate directly to the Board’s recruitment process for new teachers under s. 26(c) and is necessary. The Board made reasonable security arrangements for the protection of the personal information under s. 30. The complainants alleged the requirements of s. 30.1(a) were not met because the consent to storage and access outside Canada was not voluntary and did not meet the prescribed requirements for consent. The electronic form of consent was sufficient and there was no evidence that the consents were not voluntary. The use of the personal information for screening new applicants was consistent with the purpose for which it had been obtained under s. 32(a) and also met the consent requirement under s. 32(b).
F07-09 Jun 7, 2007 Ministry of Environment Applicant requested public interest fee waiver that Ministry initially denied. Ministry later grante... more
Applicant requested public interest fee waiver that Ministry initially denied. Ministry later granted partial fee waivers in stages. Ministry found not to have applied public interest fee waiver test properly. Refund of remaining $65 fee ordered as remedy under s. 58(3)(c).
F07-08 Apr 10, 2007 Ministry of Environment Applicant requested public interest waiver of $24,060 estimated fee. Ministry later recalculated fee... more
Applicant requested public interest waiver of $24,060 estimated fee. Ministry later recalculated fee estimate to be $172,947.50 and granted waiver of 5% of estimated fee. Ministry found not to have applied s. 75(5)(b) in a reasonable manner and ordered to discharge its duty to make a decision on whether or not to excuse the fees.
F07-07 Mar 30, 2007 Elections British Columbia The applicant requested records relating to termination of the applicant’s appointment under the Ele... more
The applicant requested records relating to termination of the applicant’s appointment under the Election Act as an electoral officer. By virtue of s. 3(1)(c), the records are excluded from FIPPA and Elections BC was not required to disclose them.
F07-06 Mar 22, 2007 British Columbia Lottery Corporation Applicant sought access to certain appropriate response training program materials from the BC Lotte... more
Applicant sought access to certain appropriate response training program materials from the BC Lottery Corporation. The public body refused to release any of the information under s. 17. Neither ss. 17(1) or (2) applies to the information.
F07-05 Mar 12, 2007 Village of Sayward The applicant requested a copy of a legal opinion over which the Village claimed solicitor-client pr... more
The applicant requested a copy of a legal opinion over which the Village claimed solicitor-client privilege. Parts of the opinion were publicly disclosed during an open council meeting and the opinion was also referred to by the Mayor in a letter to a local newspaper. Notwithstanding these disclosures, the Village did not waive privilege over the entire opinion. In circumstances where a public body makes partial disclosure of privileged communications in an effort to give effect to the principle of transparency this will not, without more, result in waiver of privilege over the entire communication. The conduct of the Village did not evidence an intention to waive privilege over the legal opinion and the partial disclosure was not misleading.
F07-04 Mar 7, 2007 Vancouver Police Department The applicant news agency requested access to the transcript and audio tape of 911 calls placed by a... more
The applicant news agency requested access to the transcript and audio tape of 911 calls placed by a named individual, as well as a copy of police reports relating to those calls. Section 25(1) does not require disclosure in the public interest. The VPD is not authorized to withhold the information under s. 15(1)(c), but is required to withhold it under s. 22.
F07-03 Feb 12, 2007 Interior Health Authority The IHA correctly disclosed the total number of abortions performed in its entire territory in 2004.... more
The IHA correctly disclosed the total number of abortions performed in its entire territory in 2004. It is required to refuse to disclose information about the numbers of abortions performed in 2004 at specific health care facilities, information about the number of abortions performed in part of the IHA’s territory in 2004 or information identifying which facilities perform abortions.
F07-02 Jan 29, 2007 District of Sparwood The applicant requested access to records related to his noise complaint about his neighbour. The Di... more
The applicant requested access to records related to his noise complaint about his neighbour. The District refused the applicant full or partial access to the records on the basis of ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), and 22(1) of FIPPA. The District is authorized by s. 13(1) of FIPPA to refuse the applicant access to a memorandum containing advice and recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The District is not authorized by s. 12(3)(b) to refuse the applicant access to the minutes of an in camera meeting because the evidence does not establish that the meeting was properly held in camera. The District is required to refuse the applicant access to information in the remaining records which is strictly that of the third party, but must not refuse access to information which is not personal information or is the applicant’s own personal information.
F07-01 Jan 12, 2007 Ministry of Environment WCWC requested public interest fee waiver which Ministry denied. Ministry was correct in finding tha... more
WCWC requested public interest fee waiver which Ministry denied. Ministry was correct in finding that records do not relate to a matter of public interest. Ministry therefore acted properly in denying fee waiver request.
P06-06 Dec 21, 2006 Tsatsu Shores Homeowners Corporation The organization was authorized to collect, use and disclose employee personal information without c... more
The organization was authorized to collect, use and disclose employee personal information without consent in most respects complained of here, but failed to give notice that it was doing so as required by PIPA. It also disclosed personal information contrary to PIPA in relation to some disclosures, failed to make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal information and failed to make a reasonable effort to assist the complainants as applicants. It did not fail to make a reasonable effort to ensure the completeness of personal information that it collected. Nor did it fail to retain personal information as required by PIPA. In view of the timing and nature of the organization’s failures to comply with PIPA, and the organization’s ongoing efforts to comply with PIPA, no legitimate purpose would be served by making any orders.
F06-21 Dec 19, 2006 Ministry of Forests and Range The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for fu... more
The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for funding through Forestry Innovation Investment. The Ministry provided the applicant with the requested record, which included comments made by the individuals who had reviewed the proposal, but severed the names of the reviewers under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Ministry also later claimed that s. 17 applied and authorized it to sever the names of the reviewers. The statutory presumption under s. 22(3) does not apply in this case. However, there are relevant factors under s. 22(2) that weigh against disclosure of the reviewers’ names and s. 22(1) does apply. Since the Ministry is required by s. 22(1) to sever the names of the reviewers, s. 17 need not be considered.
P06-05 Dec 14, 2006 Langley Cruiseshipcenters Ltd The organization collected emails to and from the three complainants that were sent and received usi... more
The organization collected emails to and from the three complainants that were sent and received using the organization’s email system. Much of the emails’ contents consisted of “work product information” and “contact information”, not personal information, but they also contained some personal information of the complainants and other individuals. PIPA authorized the organization to collect, use and disclose that personal information for the purpose of its “investigation” into whether the complainants had breached their agreements with the organization.
F06-20 Nov 9, 2006 Interior Health Authority The third-party contractor requested a review of the public body’s decision that s. 21(1) did not re... more
The third-party contractor requested a review of the public body’s decision that s. 21(1) did not require it to refuse to give access to price information in a contract between the public body and the contractor for services at a seniors home care facility. Section 21(1) does not apply to the contract price information.
P06-05 Oct 26, 2006 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation Personal information collected by Fox to establish an employee’s residency in British Columbia, in o... more
Personal information collected by Fox to establish an employee’s residency in British Columbia, in order to substantiate Fox’s claims for film production tax credits, is “employee personal information” and Fox’s collection, use and disclosure of it for that purpose complies with PIPA. PIPA requires an organization to provide information about its privacy policies on request, but it does not require the organization to provide a copy of its entire policy to whomever asks. Fox’s security arrangements for the employee personal information are reasonable.
F06-19 Oct 10, 2006 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Applicant requested her ICBC claim files and files from her ICBC-appointed lawyer. ICBC disclosed ma... more
Applicant requested her ICBC claim files and files from her ICBC-appointed lawyer. ICBC disclosed many records, but refused access to others. Sections 14, 17 and 22 found to apply to some other remaining information. Section 14 found not to apply to two pages and s. 22 found not to apply to several records.
F06-18 Sep 21, 2006 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Applicant requested his ICBC file related to his claim regarding the loss of his motorhome and its c... more
Applicant requested his ICBC file related to his claim regarding the loss of his motorhome and its contents by fire. ICBC disclosed some records but refused access to others, including fire investigation records. Sections 14, 15(1)(a) and 17(1) found not to apply. Section 22(1) found not to apply to a small amount of information.
P06-03 Sep 18, 2006 Tally-Ho Motor Inn The complainant’s manager told other organization employees that the complainant had made a complain... more
The complainant’s manager told other organization employees that the complainant had made a complaint of unsanitary conditions to WorkSafeBC. This was not reasonable for the purposes of managing the employment relationship and was not otherwise authorized under PIPA.
P06-02 Sep 14, 2006 Victory Square Law Office & British Columbia Nurses’ Union The applicant requested his personal information in documents of the two organizations. The organiza... more
The applicant requested his personal information in documents of the two organizations. The organizations were authorized and required to refuse disclosure under ss. 23(3) and (4).
F07-21 Aug 24, 2006 Public Guardian and Trustee for British Columbia The applicant may not make a request for access to her deceased’s mother’s records held by the PGT b... more
The applicant may not make a request for access to her deceased’s mother’s records held by the PGT because the PGT is still the committee. As long as an individual has a committee, then, deceased or not, s. 3(b) of the Regulation applies, and only the PGT may exercise the personal information rights accorded under FIPPA on behalf of the individual. The PGT is required to refuse the applicant access to the records except for those portions which contain the personal information of the applicant and the disclosure of which would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of a third party.
F06-17 Aug 24, 2006 Provincial Health Services Authority PHSA complied with its duty under s. 22(5) to prepare a summary of the applicant’s personal informat... more
PHSA complied with its duty under s. 22(5) to prepare a summary of the applicant’s personal information.
F06-16 Jul 18, 2006 Ministry of Environment The applicant and the provincial government participated in energy regulation hearings in the United... more
The applicant and the provincial government participated in energy regulation hearings in the United States and Canada about an energy project the applicant had proposed. The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records about the proposed energy project when the US hearings, but not the Canadian hearings, had concluded. The Ministry was slow in responding to the access request, did not comply with conditions of a time extension this Office granted the Ministry under s. 10(1)(c), and failed to respond in time, effectively taking an unsanctioned time extension. The Ministry eventually released three disclosure packages over six months, from which it withheld some information under various of the Act’s exceptions. The Ministry was authorized to refuse to give access to the information that it withheld under s. 13(1) or s. 14, but it is ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund 50% of the fees charged to the applicant.
F06-15 Jul 14, 2006 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested access under the Act to a tape recording and a transcript of a meeting of a hosp... more
Applicant requested access under the Act to a tape recording and a transcript of a meeting of a hospital committee that he had attended as a committee member. Section 51(5) of the Evidence Act prohibited disclosure. Because of s. 51(7) of the Evidence Act and s. 79 of the Act, the prohibition on disclosure applied despite the applicant’s right of access to records under the Act. The correctness or propriety of the disclosure and use in the other proceedings was not in the circumstances a matter for this inquiry under the Act.
F06-14 Jul 12, 2006 Ministry of Health Applicant requested the names of marriage commissioners who resigned after receiving a letter from t... more
Applicant requested the names of marriage commissioners who resigned after receiving a letter from the Ministry requesting the resignations of any marriage commissioners who felt they could not solemnize same-sex marriages. Ministry is not required to release the information under s. 25(1)(b) and is required to withhold the information under s. 22(1).
F06-13 Jul 12, 2006 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Applicant requested the name and address of the registered owner of an identified licence plate. ICB... more
Applicant requested the name and address of the registered owner of an identified licence plate. ICBC withheld the information correctly under s. 22(1).
F06-12 Jul 11, 2006 Insurance Council of British Columbia Applicant requested access to her personal information in complaint letters. Insurance Council denie... more
Applicant requested access to her personal information in complaint letters. Insurance Council denied access to third-party personal information and to some of applicant’s own personal information—in the form of other people’s opinions about her—under s. 15(2)(b) and s. 22(1). Section 15(2)(b) found not to apply and s. 22(1) found not to apply to applicant’s own personal information, including identities of opinion holders.
F06-11 Jul 11, 2006 Insurance Council of British Columbia Applicant requested access to her personal information in complaint letters. Insurance Council denie... more
Applicant requested access to her personal information in complaint letters. Insurance Council denied access to third-party personal information and to some of applicant’s own personal information - in the form of other people’s opinions about her - under s. 15(2)(b) and s. 22(1). Section 15(2)(b) found not to apply and s. 22(1) found not to apply to applicant’s own personal information, including identities of opinion holders.
F06-10 May 24, 2006 Ministry of Environment Applicant requested records related to changes in park user fees. Ministry withheld some information... more
Applicant requested records related to changes in park user fees. Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1). Severed information formed the basis of Cabinet deliberations and its disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet. Section 12(1) applies and s. 12(2)(c) does not apply.
F06-09 May 24, 2006 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested records related to PHSA’s interactions with external legal counsel. Records are ... more
Applicant requested records related to PHSA’s interactions with external legal counsel. Records are protected by solicitor-client privilege.
F06-08 May 24, 2006 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant requested a particular letter. The PHSA denied access under s. 14. The letter is prote... more
The applicant requested a particular letter. The PHSA denied access under s. 14. The letter is protected by solicitor-client privilege and s. 14 applies to it.
F06-07 May 24, 2006 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested records in hands of a named PHSA employee. The PHSA withheld many records on the... more
Applicant requested records in hands of a named PHSA employee. The PHSA withheld many records on the grounds they are protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. Most records are protected by s. 14 and some information is also protected by s. 22. Small amounts of information are not protected by either exception and must be disclosed.
F06-06 May 10, 2006 Ministry of Children and Family Development Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withhe... more
Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withheld some information under s. 77 of the CFCSA. Some information in the only record remaining in dispute falls under s. 77 and must be withheld.
F06-05 Apr 21, 2006 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant requested records of four specified individuals. The PHSA disclosed records and applie... more
The applicant requested records of four specified individuals. The PHSA disclosed records and applied ss. 14 and 22 to other records and information. It also said that one individual was not its employee and another had no responsive records. The PHSA is found to have correctly withheld information and records under ss. 14 and 22.
F06-04 Apr 13, 2006 Ministry of Tourism, Sports & the Arts The Ministry, which conceded that it had not responded in time to the applicant`s access to informat... more
The Ministry, which conceded that it had not responded in time to the applicant`s access to information request, is ordered to respond by a specific date.
F06-03 Apr 10, 2006 British Columbia Lottery Corporation The Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its destination casino project. The BC L... more
The Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its destination casino project. The BC Lottery Corporation disclosed some records and withheld and severed others, mainly under ss. 14, 17(1) and 21(1). It also argued that records and information fell outside the scope of the request by virtue of their date or subject matter. Section 14 found to apply but not ss. 17(1) and 21(1). Other records and information found not to be within the scope of the request.
P06-01 Mar 24, 2006 An Incorporated Dentist’s Practice Applicant requested access to her personal information in the hands of the organization, a dentist. ... more
Applicant requested access to her personal information in the hands of the organization, a dentist. The organization provided copies of the applicant’s clinical records but refused access under ss. 23(3)(a) and (c) and 23(4)(c) and (d) of PIPA to its “College/Litigation file”, comprising 16 records related to the applicant’s complaint to the College of Dental Surgeons. The organization also said that it was not able to sever the records under s. 23(5). Sections 23(4)(c) and (d) do not apply to all of the information in the records and severing under s. 23(5) is possible. The organization is, however, authorized by s. 23(3)(c) to refuse access to 15 records in their entirety and by s. 23(3)(a) to the 16th record.
F06-02 Feb 3, 2006 Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services Applicant sought records relating to an Employment Standards Tribunal matter in which it was involve... more
Applicant sought records relating to an Employment Standards Tribunal matter in which it was involved. Ministry is authorized to withhold information under s. 14, no waiver of privilege having occurred. Because its response to the applicant’s request was outside the s. 7 time limit, the Ministry failed to discharge its s. 6(1) duty to assist the applicant. Consistent with past decisions, no order is necessary in that respect.
F06-01 Feb 1, 2006 Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources The applicant requested access to records relating to a public report on offshore oil and gas explor... more
The applicant requested access to records relating to a public report on offshore oil and gas exploration prepared for the Minister of Energy and Mines by a panel of three scientific experts. For records in the possession of the Ministry, s. 12(1) applied to a small amount of information, ss. 13(1) and 16(1) applied to some other information and s. 25(1) did not apply. Some information in these records was also incorrectly withheld as not responsive to request but may be withheld under ss. 13(1) and 16(1). Records in the possession of panel members or the panel secretariat are under the control of the Ministry and subject to an access request under the Act.
F05-37 Dec 14, 2005 Abbotsford Police Department Applicant requested records related to a police investigation into the theft of his vehicle’s licenc... more
Applicant requested records related to a police investigation into the theft of his vehicle’s licence plates. APD withheld some information under s. 22. Section 22 applies to the information and the APD is required to withhold it.
F05-36 Dec 14, 2005 Ministry of Agriculture and Lands Applicant requested records related to Crown properties in the Shawnigan Lake area and asked for a f... more
Applicant requested records related to Crown properties in the Shawnigan Lake area and asked for a fee waiver on public interest and financial grounds. Public body refused to waive the fee on both grounds. A complete fee waiver is appropriate on the grounds that the applicant cannot afford payment. A partial fee waiver is appropriate on public interest grounds.
F05-35 Nov 9, 2005 City Richmond The City retained a lawyer to investigate a City employee’s allegations of wrongdoing within a City ... more
The City retained a lawyer to investigate a City employee’s allegations of wrongdoing within a City department for the purpose of providing a fact-finding report and legal advice to the City. Resulting report from the lawyer to the City was protected by legal professional privilege and the City was authorized by s. 14 of the Act to refuse to disclose it to the applicant journalist.
F05-34 Oct 12, 2005 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of... more
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
F05-33 Oct 7, 2005 City of Burnaby Applicant requested various records relating to the SPCA, including a report on the care of animals,... more
Applicant requested various records relating to the SPCA, including a report on the care of animals, which the City withheld under s. 22. Personal information can reasonably be severed from the report and withheld. Remaining information found not to be personal information under s. 22. City ordered to disclose record with personal information severed.
F05-32 Oct 5, 2005 Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the maj... more
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the majority of the report, severing four lines from the 27 pages under s. 22. The severed information was submitted in confidence to the public body and its disclosure would unfairly expose third parties to harm. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the severed information.
F05-31 Sep 20, 2005 The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) Union requested name(s) of person(s) who requested information on leave for union business by member... more
Union requested name(s) of person(s) who requested information on leave for union business by members of the union executive. School District denied access under s. 22. Section 22 applies to the name of the third party.
F05-30 Sep 6, 2005 The Corporation of the City of New Westminster Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and r... more
Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and rescue service. City disclosed report with portions severed under ss. 17 and 22. Section 17 does not apply. Section 22 applies to some but not all information. City ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply
F05-29 Sep 1, 2005 British Columbia Assessment Authority Applicant retailer requested specific information relating to assessments of shopping centres where ... more
Applicant retailer requested specific information relating to assessments of shopping centres where its leased stores were located. Neither s. 21(1) nor s. 21(2) requires BC Assessment to refuse disclosure
F05-28 Aug 30, 2005 Office of the Premier The applicant sought records relating to development of a rapid transit line connecting Richmond, Va... more
The applicant sought records relating to development of a rapid transit line connecting Richmond, Vancouver International Airport and downtown Vancouver. Sections 12(1) and 22(1) require the Premier’s Office to refuse disclosure and ss. 14, 16(1) and 17(1)(e) authorize it to refuse disclosure
F05-27 Aug 25, 2005 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicants sought Ministry records relating to a complaint they had made about a business. Secti... more
The applicants sought Ministry records relating to a complaint they had made about a business. Sections 13(1) and 14 authorize the Ministry to refuse disclosure and, with one exception relating to personal information of the applicants, s. 22 requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure
F05-26 Aug 25, 2005 Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission The applicant, a patient in a hospital operated by the Commission, requested his records from the Co... more
The applicant, a patient in a hospital operated by the Commission, requested his records from the Commission. The Commission said certain records are excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(h). The applicant was found to be not criminally responsible under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code for certain crimes. The applicant’s prosecution ended with the verdict of not criminally responsible and the processes regarding his case under Part XX.1 are not proceedings in respect of the prosecution. The Act applies to the records and the Commission must process the applicant’s request
F05-06 (Supplement) Aug 23, 2005 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia No summary available.
F05-25 Aug 10, 2005 Ministry of Health Applicant requested records relating to the decision to make her position redundant during a major d... more
Applicant requested records relating to the decision to make her position redundant during a major downsizing of the Ministry’s operations. Applicant made a second request concerning consultations between the Ministry and the union representing employees affected by the downsizing. The Ministry did not meet its duty to assist with respect to the first request but did so after the close of inquiry. The Ministry did meet its duty to assist with respect to the second request
F05-24 Aug 9, 2005 Abbotsford Police Department The applicant sought access to records of a police investigation into a probable homicide. Although ... more
The applicant sought access to records of a police investigation into a probable homicide. Although the death occurred a number of years ago, the investigation is ongoing and s. 15 authorizes the APD to withhold the information it withheld. Section 16 also authorizes, and s. 22 requires, the APD to withhold information. The APD’s decision is upheld
F05-23 Jul 12, 2005 Ministry of the Attorney General Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry fo... more
Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. Ministry ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid
F05-22 Jul 12, 2005 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry fo... more
Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. Ministry ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid
F05-21 Jul 12, 2005 Land and Water British Columbia Inc. Applicant requested records related to a property. LWBC responded nine months later. LWBC found not ... more
Applicant requested records related to a property. LWBC responded nine months later. LWBC found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. LWBC ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid
F05-20 Jul 5, 2005 Ministry of Children and Family Development Applicant, an adult adoptee, requested records showing her birth father’s name. Ministry refused acc... more
Applicant, an adult adoptee, requested records showing her birth father’s name. Ministry refused access, on the basis that disclosure would unreasonably invade the privacy of third parties. In the circumstances of this case, s. 22 requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure of the third party’s name to the applicant.
F05-19 Jun 30, 2005 Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance Applicant requested correction of personal information in two forms by making additions and changes ... more
Applicant requested correction of personal information in two forms by making additions and changes or by removal. Ministry acted appropriately in not correcting personal information in forms, in not removing one form and in annotating files with correction requests. Ministry also complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
F05-18 Jun 29, 2005 College of Psychologists of British Columbia The applicant requested copies of a letter sent to a psychologist by the Inquiry Committee of the Co... more
The applicant requested copies of a letter sent to a psychologist by the Inquiry Committee of the College of Psychologists of B.C. and the psychologist’s reply to that letter. The letter was sent and the reply made pursuant to an investigation following a complaint about the conduct of the psychologist to the College. Although the records contain some personal information of the applicant, this is incidental to what is in substance personal information of the psychologist relating to her occupational history. As such, under s. 22(3)(d), there is a presumption that disclosure of the records would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the psychologist’s personal privacy. The applicant provided no evidence to rebut this presumption. The College is therefore required by s. 22(1) to withhold the records.
F05-17 Jun 28, 2005 City of Vancouver The applicant made a request for records relating to a development application considered by the Cit... more
The applicant made a request for records relating to a development application considered by the City of Vancouver. The City released all responsive records but one. This record was withheld under s. 13(1). The record was found to be advice and recommendations and was properly withheld after the City’s appropriate exercise of its discretion.
F05-16 Jun 8, 2005 Kwantlen University College Applicant requested copy of cafeteria management contract between Kwantlen University College and a ... more
Applicant requested copy of cafeteria management contract between Kwantlen University College and a food services company. KUC disclosed most of contract, withholding payment and capital investment information under s. 21. Severed information does not meet the second and third parts of the s. 21 test and is ordered disclosed.
P05-03 May 27, 2005 Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP The same respondent as in Order P05-02 also requested all information relating to him from this orga... more
The same respondent as in Order P05-02 also requested all information relating to him from this organization. The organization correctly responded that the applicant’s personal information in its files is not subject to the Personal Information Protection Act. The personal information is in records under the control of two different public bodies, which had been clients of the organization. The personal information is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and not the Personal Information Protection Act.
P05-02 May 27, 2005 Bull Housser & Tupper Respondent had requested all information relating to him. Organization correct to respond that perso... more
Respondent had requested all information relating to him. Organization correct to respond that personal information of the applicant in its files is not subject to the Personal Information Protection Act. The applicant’s personal information is in records under the control of a public body that is a client of the organization. The applicant’s personal information is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and not the Personal Information Protection Act.
P05-01 May 25, 2005 K.E. Gostlin Enterprises Limited The organization operates a Canadian Tire store. When returning goods to the store, the complainant ... more
The organization operates a Canadian Tire store. When returning goods to the store, the complainant declined to provide her name, address and telephone number. The organization?s notices of purpose of collection comply with PIPA, although the organization is encouraged to improve them. PIPA permits the organization to require individuals to provide this personal information and to use it as part of its efforts to detect and deter fraudulent returns of goods. This information is “necessary” for that purpose under s. 7(2). The organization cannot, however, require individuals to provide such personal information for the purpose of customer satisfaction follow-up, a purpose and use that must be made optional for customers. Section 35(2) does not authorize the organization to retain personal information permanently, but no retention period is suggested.
F05-15 May 2, 2005 District of North Vancouver The applicant requested records, including legal opinions, related to the District’s agreement with ... more
The applicant requested records, including legal opinions, related to the District’s agreement with a company to build and operate an ice facility. The District provided access to some records and withheld others under ss. 13, 14 and 17. The District has not waived privilege over the disputed records and is authorized by s. 14 to withhold them.
F05-14 Apr 14, 2005 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General West Vancouver Police Association requested access to report of Ministry’s review of West Vancouver ... more
West Vancouver Police Association requested access to report of Ministry’s review of West Vancouver Police Department. Ministry disclosed report in severed form, withholding portions under s. 22. Ministry ordered to disclose most of withheld information.
F05-13 Apr 8, 2005 College of Psychologists of British Columbia Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Inquiry Committee meetings and listing of actions re... more
Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Inquiry Committee meetings and listing of actions related to a complaint filed against him. Committee withheld entirety of responsive records under ss. 3(1)(b), 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22. Records withheld under s. 3(1)(b) do not meet required criteria. Committee entitled to withhold only substance of deliberations under s. 12(3)(b). Sections 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22 found not to apply. Public body ordered to re-consider its decision to withhold under s. 12(3)(b).
F05-12 Apr 7, 2005 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. ... more
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
F05-11 Apr 7, 2005 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection... more
Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.
F05-10 Apr 7, 2005 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested names of legal counsel paid for by PHSA for PHSA employees. PHSA refused access ... more
Applicant requested names of legal counsel paid for by PHSA for PHSA employees. PHSA refused access under s. 14 on grounds that information, if it exists, would reveal terms of any retainer between solicitor and client and therefore information protected by solicitor-client privilege. Requested information, if it exists, is protected by solicitor-client privilege
F05-09 Apr 6, 2005 Financial Institutions Commission Applicant requested copy of insurance company’s response to his complaint. FICOM withheld it under s... more
Applicant requested copy of insurance company’s response to his complaint. FICOM withheld it under s. 21. Section 21 does not require FICOM to withhold respons
F05-08 Mar 23, 2005 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to it... more
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
F05-06 (Amended) Mar 1, 2005 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The applicant requested records detailing the operations of ICBC’s Glass Express program, including ... more
The applicant requested records detailing the operations of ICBC’s Glass Express program, including records relating to suspensions of glass vendors’ rights under the program. ICBC properly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) and, in some places, s. 13(1). Some information withheld under s. 13(1) is ordered disclosed. Information withheld under s. 17(1) is ordered disclosed.
F05-05 Feb 24, 2005 Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, Provincial Health Services Authority Commission requested and accepted six proposals from a consulting company, which retained a named in... more
Commission requested and accepted six proposals from a consulting company, which retained a named individual to deliver some or all of the contract services. Applicant requested access to records relating to the Commission’s direct or indirect retainer of the services of the named individual. Section 21(1) does not require the Commission to refuse to disclose time estimates, daily rate information and total fees and administrative expenses respecting the contract services, or standard contract terms and conditions
F05-04 Feb 4, 2005 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Applicant requested records related to the District’s request for offers regarding a property sale. ... more
Applicant requested records related to the District’s request for offers regarding a property sale. The District initially withheld several records but, after the sale of the property, disclosed almost all of them. Section 14 applies to the remaining records in dispute
F05-04 Feb 4, 2005 The Corporation of City of White Rock City denied applicant’s request for a public interest fee waiver respecting records related to vehic... more
City denied applicant’s request for a public interest fee waiver respecting records related to vehicle expenses. Records do not relate to a matter of public interest and City’s decision to deny fee waiver confirmed
F05-03 Feb 2, 2005 British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association Applicant requested records related to her complaint to the BCVMA about a veterinarian. The BCVMA wi... more
Applicant requested records related to her complaint to the BCVMA about a veterinarian. The BCVMA withheld the records on the grounds that they were excluded from the scope of the Act under s. 3(1)(h) or, in the alternative, that ss. 8(2), 13, 15 and 22 apply to the records. Section 3(1)(h) does not apply to the records in dispute but s. 15(1)(a) does apply
F05-02 Jan 14, 2005 The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 68 Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about... more
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
F05-01 Jan 13, 2005 British Columbia Housing Managment Commission Applicant requested report or audit of Portland Housing Society. BC Housing withheld record in full.... more
Applicant requested report or audit of Portland Housing Society. BC Housing withheld record in full. Sections 13(1) and 21(1) apply to most of record. BC Housing Commission ordered to disclose some information
04-38 Dec 21, 2004 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant requested records related to interactions between the PHSA and CWHC and the BC Health ... more
The applicant requested records related to interactions between the PHSA and CWHC and the BC Health Care Risk Management Society. The PHSA had no responsive records and fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in conducting a search for responsive records.
04-37 Dec 20, 2004 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested records about himself within the PHSA’s communications department. The PHSA appl... more
Applicant requested records about himself within the PHSA’s communications department. The PHSA applied ss. 14 and 22 properly, but is ordered to reconsider most information it withheld under s. 13(1). PHSA properly characterized certain information as non-responsive to request.
04-36 Dec 20, 2004 Provincial Health Services Authority The applicant requested records identifying legal counsel in a particular matter. The PHSA said no r... more
The applicant requested records identifying legal counsel in a particular matter. The PHSA said no records exist. The PHSA complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records and accounting for the non-existence of such records.
04-35 Nov 18, 2004 Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicant requested her adoption file from the Ministry. The Ministry responded with records, se... more
The applicant requested her adoption file from the Ministry. The Ministry responded with records, severing information about third parties including the name of the applicant’s birth father under s. 22. The Ministry found to have applied s. 22 properly to the severed records.
04-34 Nov 10, 2004 BC Transportation Financing Authority Applicant requested a “term sheet” related to a contract for a highway interchange in Langley. Term ... more
Applicant requested a “term sheet” related to a contract for a highway interchange in Langley. Term sheet was attached to a Treasury Board submission and found to have formed basis of deliberations of Cabinet and Treasury Board. BCTFA found to have correctly refused access to disputed information under s. 12(1). Section 12(2) does not apply.
04-33 Nov 10, 2004 Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General Applicant asked for records of investigation into his complaints against his managers and supervisor... more
Applicant asked for records of investigation into his complaints against his managers and supervisors. Ministry severed report and withheld interview notes. Ministry argued summary under s. 22(5) not possible. Ministry found in some cases to have applied s. 22 correctly. Ministry ordered to disclose other information withheld under s. 22 and to prepare summary of remaining personal information of applicant in report and in interview notes.
04-32 Nov 10, 2004 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and did so only partially, to the applicant’s request for ac... more
The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and did so only partially, to the applicant’s request for access to records. The Ministry failed to comply with its s. 6 duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay and is ordered to respond completely.
04-31 Nov 10, 2004 Land and Water British Columbia Inc. The public body took 10 months to respond to the applicant’s request for access to records. The publ... more
The public body took 10 months to respond to the applicant’s request for access to records. The public body failed to comply with its s. 6(1) duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay.
04-30 Nov 10, 2004 Ministry of Attorney General The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and then only partially, to the applicant’s request for acce... more
The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and then only partially, to the applicant’s request for access to what the Ministry describes as a “file box full of records”. The Ministry failed to comply with its s. 6(1) duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay and is ordered to respond completely.
04-29 Nov 1, 2004 Corporation of the City of Rossland The applicant requested financial information about nine various projects and administration work wh... more
The applicant requested financial information about nine various projects and administration work which the City was involved with. The City provided information about seven of the nine and charged a fee for the remaining two items. They denied the applicant’s request to waive the fee in the public interest. The applicant did not provide evidence as to how he would disseminate the information to the public. The decision of the public body to deny the fee waiver is confirmed.
04-28 Oct 29, 2004 Ministry of Transportation The disclosure of notes prepared by a third party for a meeting with a Ministry official about a sub... more
The disclosure of notes prepared by a third party for a meeting with a Ministry official about a subdivision issue, is not an invasion of a third-party’s privacy, nor does the disclosure meet the test in s. 21.
04-27 Oct 20, 2004 City of Vancouver The applicant requested records relating to the review by two experts of an appraisal conducted by t... more
The applicant requested records relating to the review by two experts of an appraisal conducted by the applicant. The City conducted an adequate search for records. It does not have control over records in the custody of the two experts. The City did not fail in its duty to assist under s. 6 as a result of not requesting that the two experts provide a copy of their records for release to the applicant.
04-26 Oct 15, 2004 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested records related to relationship between the PHSA and a named consulting business... more
Applicant requested records related to relationship between the PHSA and a named consulting business. PHSA found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for these records.
04-25 Sep 9, 2004 Children’s and Women’s Health Centre and the Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld ... more
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
04-24 Sep 2, 2004 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested certain information on test results. The PHSA said it did not have records reque... more
Applicant requested certain information on test results. The PHSA said it did not have records requested and that it was not obliged under s. 6(2) to create a record to respond to the request. The records do not exist in machine-readable form and the PHSA is not obliged under s. 6(2) to create a record.
04-23 Sep 2, 2004 Provincial Health Services Authority Applicant requested records related to an investigation. The PHSA provided some responsive records a... more
Applicant requested records related to an investigation. The PHSA provided some responsive records and said it could not locate any others. The PHSA is found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
04-22 Sep 1, 2004 Ministry of Children and Family Development Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some... more
Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some information and said applicant had no right of access to records related to his children and ex-wife. Ministry correctly applied s. 77 CFCSA, with some minor exceptions and found to have exercised due diligence in searching for responsive records.
04-21 Sep 1, 2004 West Vancouver Police Department The applicant requested information about a credit search conducted about her. The applicant is enti... more
The applicant requested information about a credit search conducted about her. The applicant is entitled to all personal information about her provided it will not reveal the identity of a third party. Section 22 requires the public body to withhold information which could identify a third party. Section 22 does not require the public body to withhold the name of an employee of a private business.
04-20 Sep 1, 2004 Vancouver Police Department Applicant requested 13-year old complaint records. VPD found to have applied s. 19(1)(a) correctly a... more
Applicant requested 13-year old complaint records. VPD found to have applied s. 19(1)(a) correctly and, with the exception of hospital employee names, s. 22.
04-19 Aug 27, 2004 The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 63 (Saanich) The applicant is an employee of the public body and was the target of a harassment complaint by a co... more
The applicant is an employee of the public body and was the target of a harassment complaint by a co-worker. The applicant made an access request for a contract investigator’s notes of investigation of the complaint. The notes are under the control of the public body, which is required to comply with the Act by processing the access request.
04-18 Aug 12, 2004 Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General Applicant requested a list of all firearms matters that had proceeded to hearing. Only responsive re... more
Applicant requested a list of all firearms matters that had proceeded to hearing. Only responsive record was a list created by legal counsel to track ongoing appeals. List withheld under s. 14. Record found to be privileged. Ministry found to have met its duty to assist. Ministry not required to create a record as contemplated by s. 6.
04-17 Jul 22, 2004 Ministry of Management Services The applicant requested access to records disclosing telephone numbers called by the Premier from hi... more
The applicant requested access to records disclosing telephone numbers called by the Premier from his private lines during a specified period. Section 17(1) does not authorize the Ministry to refuse disclosure. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure and severance under s. 4(2) is not required.
04-16 Jul 12, 2004 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant requested information relating to two named lawyers with whom he had past dealings. Th... more
The applicant requested information relating to two named lawyers with whom he had past dealings. The Law Society is authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of certain information, is authorized to refuse access to information protected by solicitor-client privilege and is required to refuse access to third-party personal information.
04-15 Jun 30, 2004 University of British Columbia Applicant requested records related to his employment and promotion within UBC. UBC disclosed many r... more
Applicant requested records related to his employment and promotion within UBC. UBC disclosed many records, withheld other records and information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 and said other records were not relevant to the request. Applicant questioned search adequacy and objected to withholding of information. UBC applied s. 14 properly and, with some exceptions, also ss. 13(1) and 22. UBC searched adequately for responsive records, with one minor exception, for which it was ordered to search again. UBC ordered to disclose some information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22 and to provide a response on some records found to be relevant to request.
04-14 May 14, 2004 Ministry of Finance Applicant requested records relating to the creation of two documents, both of which were posted on ... more
Applicant requested records relating to the creation of two documents, both of which were posted on the Ministry’s website. The Ministry charged a fee and denied the applicant’s request to waive the fee in the public interest. The records are not related to a matter of public interest. The fee is confirmed
04-13 May 3, 2004 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records pertaining to a motor vehicle accid... more
The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records pertaining to a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of the applicant’s mother. The Ministry released one record but withheld witness statements related to the accident. The Ministry is authorized to withhold all information under s. 15(1)(g).
04-12 Apr 22, 2004 Office of the Chief Coroner The applicants requested a judgement of inquiry regarding an individual’s death. The OCC provided a ... more
The applicants requested a judgement of inquiry regarding an individual’s death. The OCC provided a severed copy of the judgement citing s. 22 as a basis for withholding information. The applicants argued that public interest and public health and safety required the full record be released. The OCC stated that disclosure would unfairly damage the reputation of third parties. Section 25 does not require the OCC to disclose information and s. 22 requires it to refuse disclosure.
04-11 Apr 19, 2004 Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management The applicant made a request for a fee waiver under s. 75(5), on the basis that release of the recor... more
The applicant made a request for a fee waiver under s. 75(5), on the basis that release of the records was in the public interest. Although the requested records were about the environment, they did not relate to a matter of current public interest. The applicant provided no evidence that met the test for establishing a public interest waiver as defined by the Commissioner. Decision of public body to deny request for fee waiver confirmed.
04-10 Apr 6, 2004 District of West Vancouver The applicant requested records relating to various building and right of way issues. The District p... more
The applicant requested records relating to various building and right of way issues. The District provided a fee estimate for the production of the records. The applicant objected to the amount of the estimate. The District was found to have properly applied s. 75(1) to the fee estimate.
04-09 Apr 6, 2004 Ministry of Health Services The applicant made a request for records related to the Core Services Review of the BC Ambulance Ser... more
The applicant made a request for records related to the Core Services Review of the BC Ambulance Service. The Ministry denied access under ss. 12(1), 13, and 17. Prior to the inquiry, the Ministry released some records, fulfilling its duties under s. 4(2). The Ministry carried out its duties under s. 6. Section 25 does not apply. The Ministry applied s. 12(1) appropriately.
04-08 Apr 1, 2004 Ministry of Competition, Science & Enterprise A corporation owned and controlled by the Province of British Columbia was a third party and not a p... more
A corporation owned and controlled by the Province of British Columbia was a third party and not a public body under the Act. The applicant local government made an access request to the Ministry for a report prepared by business and financial consultants for that corporation, respecting its investment in a forest products company. The Ministry is not authorized to refuse access under s. 13(1) because information was not developed by or for a public body or minister, but the Ministry is required to refuse access under s. 21(1).
04-07 Mar 11, 2004 Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection The applicant requested access to records concerning the public body’s response to a complaint relat... more
The applicant requested access to records concerning the public body’s response to a complaint relating to the protection of a stream. The public body released records but refused to provide information that would reveal the identity of a third-party complainant. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the disputed information.
04-06 Mar 4, 2004 Ministry of Health Services Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse access to rate information in three contracts ... more
Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse access to rate information in three contracts for computer consulting services, proposals preceding the contracts or a score sheet comparing proposals. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse to disclose some personal information in the proposals preceding the contracts.
04-05 Feb 16, 2004 The Board Of School Trustees Of School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher reque... more
Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher requested a review of the School District’s decision to disclose reports in severed form. School District found to have correctly decided to disclose severed reports.
04-04 Feb 16, 2004 The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor den... more
Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records. Third-party teacher requested review of School District’s decision to disclose investigator’s report and hearing records in severed form. School District found to have applied s. 8(2)(b) properly and to have correctly decided to sever and disclose report and hearing records.
04-03 Feb 9, 2004 City Of Surrey The City is required to withhold some third-party personal information in records of complaints to ... more
The City is required to withhold some third-party personal information in records of complaints to the City about the applicants’ property. The City is required to withhold telephone numbers, fax numbers, e-mail addresses, employment information and personal opinions or observations not related to the applicants, but must disclose the rest to the applicants.
04-02 Jan 29, 2004 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records pertaining to a child custody matt... more
The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records pertaining to a child custody matter involving her daughter, now an adult. The Ministry released some records but withheld records contained in the family advocate’s file. Its search for records was adequate. The Ministry is not authorized to withhold information under s. 14, but s. 22 requires the Ministry to withhold the same information.
04-01 Jan 12, 2004 City of Vancouver An access request was made for copies of the 1999 disclosure statements that two municipal election... more
An access request was made for copies of the 1999 disclosure statements that two municipal election candidates were required to file under the Vancouver Charter. Section 65 of the Vancouver Charter requires the City to make such statements available for public inspection. It also requires the City to obtain from anyone inspecting a statement a signed statement of restricted purpose and use. This requirement conflicts or is inconsistent with public access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for unrestricted purposes and uses. Under s. 8.1 of the Vancouver Charter, s. 65 of the Vancouver Charter overrides the Act to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency. In the absence of a right of access under the Act, the applicant has no right to copies under ss. 5(2) and 9(2)(a) of the Act.
03-44 Dec 23, 2003 Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia The applicant made a request for records for all information about the applicant and her mother hel... more
The applicant made a request for records for all information about the applicant and her mother held by the public body. The PGT provided records to the applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the PGT to refuse access to thirdparty personal information. Section 3(1)(c) requires the PGT to withhold operational records created by or for the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner. The PGT found to have applied s. 22 and s. 3(1)(c) properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records.
03-43 Dec 18, 2003 Vancouver Island Health Authority The applicant made a request for records relating to a complaint made by a third party. The health ... more
The applicant made a request for records relating to a complaint made by a third party. The health authority provided records to the applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the health authority to refuse access to third-party personal information. The health authority applied s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records.
03-42 Dec 17, 2003 Ministry of Health Services The Ministry disclosed information in audit reports relating to three physicians’ services that wer... more
The Ministry disclosed information in audit reports relating to three physicians’ services that were billed to the Medical Services Plan, but refused to disclose some information from those reports. The information is personal information the disclosure of which would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the audited physicians under s. 22(1). The Ministry is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).
03-41 Dec 9, 2003 Vancouver Coast Health Authority The VCHA is not authorized or required to withhold the entirety of some pages of records relating t... more
The VCHA is not authorized or required to withhold the entirety of some pages of records relating to incident reports by licensed residential community care facilities. The rest of the requested records contain personal information of residents that cannot reasonably be severed under s. 4(2). The VCHA may create a responsive non-identifying record under s. 6. The VCHA is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).
03-40 Oct 30, 2003 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the applicant but sever... more
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. Ministry found to have applied s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records.
03-39 Oct 23, 2003 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested records relating to the amount spent by the provincial government in the leg... more
The applicant requested records relating to the amount spent by the provincial government in the legal defence of a third party. Section 14 authorizes the Ministry to refuse to disclose information.
03-38 Oct 23, 2003 Ministry of Human Resources The applicant requested the removal of computer entries which were incorrectly placed on his file. T... more
The applicant requested the removal of computer entries which were incorrectly placed on his file. The Ministry annotated the entries but did not remove them. Under ss. 29 and 58(3)(d), the Ministry is required to delete the entries.
03-37 Oct 16, 2003 University of British Columbia Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records, withholding other ... more
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records, withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
03-36 Oct 10, 2003 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The applicant sought from the public body information that might confirm the applicant’s suspicions ... more
The applicant sought from the public body information that might confirm the applicant’s suspicions that the public body was systematically biased against him. The public body withheld from applicant under s. 19 certain information, on the basis of a perceived threat by the applicant to the safety of public body employees. Public body submitted evidence of applicant’s past behaviour, but such evidence was insufficient to satisfy the test of reasonable expectation of threat set out in s. 19(1). Applicant’s personal information withheld under s. 22 is ordered disclosed. Other s. 22 severances upheld relating to applicant’s family members.
03-35 Oct 7, 2003 Fraser Health Authority In response to its access request to the FHA, the HEU received electronic copies of two consultants’... more
In response to its access request to the FHA, the HEU received electronic copies of two consultants’ reports respecting possible private development of a new health centre. The HEU was able to uncover information the FHA believed it had severed from the electronic copies under s. 17(1). The HEU posted on its website copies of the consultant’s reports with instructions enabling viewers to recover information the FHA believed had been severed. The HEU requested a review of the FHA decision to refuse access to information in the consultant’s reports. The FHA was authorized to refuse access under s. 17(1) and its decision to do so is confirmed. After the FHA’s faulty severing of information, there is risk of harm under s. 17(1) against which the FHA is authorized to protect itself by refusing access to the disputed information.
03-34 Sep 23, 2003 Board of School Trustees of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) The applicant requested records about herself and her daughter. Under ss. 21 and 22, the VSB withhel... more
The applicant requested records about herself and her daughter. Under ss. 21 and 22, the VSB withheld some information and records. The VSB is found to have applied s. 22 properly and is ordered to prepare a s. 22(5) summary.
03-33 Jul 24, 2003 Ministry of Finance The applicant sought records relating to a request for proposals to provide services to the provinci... more
The applicant sought records relating to a request for proposals to provide services to the provincial government, including proposals submitted by other proponents and records reflecting the government’s assessment of the proposals. Section 21(1) requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure of information which could reasonably be expected to result in harm under s. 21(1)(c).
03-32 Jul 24, 2003 City of Vancouver Canadian Pacific Railway requested records relating to its Arbutus railway corridor lands. The City ... more
Canadian Pacific Railway requested records relating to its Arbutus railway corridor lands. The City of Vancouver failed to comply with s. 6(1) by responding to the access request outside the legislated time frame, without seeking an extension of time under s. 10(1). Although the City also initially failed to comply with s. 6(1) by inadequately searching for the requested records and incompletely responding to the access request, this was rectified by subsequent searches and disclosure to the
03-31 Jul 22, 2003 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested copies of cheques issued by the Ministry of Finance in payment of legal fees... more
The applicant requested copies of cheques issued by the Ministry of Finance in payment of legal fees on behalf of a third party. Section 14 authorizes the Ministry to refuse to disclose information.
03-30 Jul 22, 2003 Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Section 17(1) authorizes the Ministry to withhold the electronic record of scientific information, ... more
Section 17(1) authorizes the Ministry to withhold the electronic record of scientific information, disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to harm the Ministry’s interests and cause undue harm to a third party
03-30 Jul 22, 2003 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested a copy of an accounting of legal fees the provincial government has paid on... more
The applicant requested a copy of an accounting of legal fees the provincial government has paid on behalf of a third party. Section 14 authorizes the Ministry to refuse to disclose information.
03-29 Jul 17, 2003 The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) Applicant, a teacher employed by the public body, requested copies of letters about applicant writt... more
Applicant, a teacher employed by the public body, requested copies of letters about applicant written by parents. Public body correctly released the substance of third parties’ letters to the applicant but properly refused under s. 22 to disclose their identifying information. However, the public body failed to respond in the time permitted by the Act.
03-28 Jul 15, 2003 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant journalist requested access to records relating to billings by lawyers acting at publ... more
The applicant journalist requested access to records relating to billings by lawyers acting at public expense for an Air India bombing accused. Section 14 authorizes the Ministry to refuse to disclose the records, which are privileged, in their entirety. Section 25(1) does not require disclosure of the privileged information in the public interest.
03-27 Jul 8, 2003 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information. Applicant reques... more
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information. Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22 properly to some information.
03-26 Jun 23, 2003 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he had made about ... more
The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose third-party personal information protected by s. 22.
Jun 20, 2003 Ministry of Finance The applicant requested access to the phone log of a government employee. The Ministry produced phon... more
The applicant requested access to the phone log of a government employee. The Ministry produced phone bills for a cell phone used by the employee but withheld an account number under ss. 15(1)(l) and 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold the account number under s. 15(1)(l) and as a result it was unnecessary to consider s. 17.
03-25 Jun 19, 2003 British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority The applicant requested records relating to BC Hydro’s commitment to offset 50% of increased greenho... more
The applicant requested records relating to BC Hydro’s commitment to offset 50% of increased greenhouse gas emissions from new Vancouver Island gas-fired electricity generating plants. Sections 13 and 17 of the Act authorize BC Hydro to refuse to disclose information in the records.
03-24 Jun 18, 2003 College of Psychologists of British Columbia The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member. The College disclose... more
The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member. The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b) apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.
03-23 Jun 4, 2003 Insurance Corporation The applicant requested records relating to an investigation conducted by ICBC. He received a tape ... more
The applicant requested records relating to an investigation conducted by ICBC. He received a tape recording of an interview, but believed that the record had been altered. ICBC conducted an adequate search for records and there was no evidence of tampering.
03-22 May 15, 2003 City of Vancouver Section 12(3)(b) authorizes the City to refuse to disclose two records. Sections 13(1) and 14 autho... more
Section 12(3)(b) authorizes the City to refuse to disclose two records. Sections 13(1) and 14 authorize the City to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. Section 17(1) does not authorize the City to refuse to disclose information.
03-21 May 14, 2003 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The Ministry is required by s. 22(1), in this case, to withhold names of private security firm empl... more
The Ministry is required by s. 22(1), in this case, to withhold names of private security firm employees, since s. 22(3)(d) applies and s. 22(4)(i) does not. Not necessary to decide whether s. 19(1)(a) applies.
03-20 May 13, 2003 Ministry of Forests The Ministry initially attempted to charge Sierra fees for creating records on the basis that the A... more
The Ministry initially attempted to charge Sierra fees for creating records on the basis that the Act did not apply. Sierra paid the Ministry’s estimated fee under protest and requested a public interest fee waiver under s. 75(5)(b) of the Act. The Ministry conceded that the two parts of the public interest fee waiver test have been met, but argued that a partial or full fee waiver would shift an unreasonable cost burden to it. The Ministry has not provided evidence to support its assertion that a waiver of any degree would shift an unreasonable cost burden to it. The fee is excused completely and the Ministry must refund the fee
03-19 May 13, 2003 Ministry of Health Services The applicant, a journalist, requested access to records relating to prescription patterns for vari... more
The applicant, a journalist, requested access to records relating to prescription patterns for various drugs in British Columbia. She had made similar requests before and had written a number of newspaper articles about prescription of drugs for children and youth. The Ministry is not excused by s. 6(2) from creating the requested records. The requested records relate to a matter of public interest and the applicant is not making the request for a private purpose. The fee is excused under s. 75(5)(b)
03-18 Apr 30, 2003 BC Human Rights Commission Applicants requested records from the Human Rights Commission about their complaint. Applicants requ... more
Applicants requested records from the Human Rights Commission about their complaint. Applicants requested, under the Act, that the Commission provide them with all the information submitted by the School District to the Commission during the course of the human rights investigation, which resulted in an investigation report. In addition, the applicants requested corrections in the investigation report. The Commission provided records. The applicants stated the Commission had not conducted an adequate search for records from the School District. Section 40 of the Human Rights Code operates to prohibit the application of the Act until the complaint is referred to a tribunal, dismissed, or is otherwise settled or withdrawn. The Commission met its obligation to assist the applicants and was not obligated to correct
03-17 Apr 30, 2003 College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia Applicant requested records relating to a complaint she made to the College about a dentist. The Co... more
Applicant requested records relating to a complaint she made to the College about a dentist. The College properly withheld the personal information of third parties withheld under s. 22. The College performed its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search for records responsive to the request
03-16 Apr 25, 2003 Ministry of Forests The applicant sought access to an electronic copy of the Ministry’s computerized enforcement and com... more
The applicant sought access to an electronic copy of the Ministry’s computerized enforcement and compliance tracking system, ERA. The Ministry initially proposed giving the applicant a paper copy and estimated a fee. Discussions clarified that the applicant wanted an electronic copy of a snapshot, at a given date, of the ERA, with certain data entities and attributes deleted. The Ministry refused on three grounds: an electronic copy of the snapshot included computer software elements that are excluded from the definition of record in Schedule 1, s. 6(2) did not require it to create the requested record and s. 4(2) did not require it to sever the record. Section 6(2) requires the Ministry to create the electronic record that the applicant requested, but information excepted from disclosure under the Act cannot reasonably be severed from the record under s. 4(2)
03-15 Apr 22, 2003 Ministry of Attorney General The BCNU sought access to two contracts for nursing services at a correctional centre. The Ministry... more
The BCNU sought access to two contracts for nursing services at a correctional centre. The Ministry withheld some contract price information under s. 17(1) and some under s. 21(1). The third-party contractor argued that s. 21(1) applied to all of the disputed information. The exceptions claimed do not authorize or require the Ministry to refuse to disclose the disputed information. The Ministry has not established a reasonable expectation of harm in relation to information withheld under s. 17(1). Information withheld under s. 21(1) falls under s. 21(1)(a) and (c), but requirements of s. 21(1)(b) are not met
03-14 Mar 31, 2003 Ministry of Management Services Applicant requested copy of draft report of Smith Commission of Inquiry into the Nanaimo Commonweal... more
Applicant requested copy of draft report of Smith Commission of Inquiry into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Ministry denied access under s. 3(1)(b). Section 25(1)(b) found not to apply to record. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply as Commissioner Smith was not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity and record is not a draft decision. Ministry ordered to respond to request under the Act
03-13 Mar 31, 2003 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant, a former Ministry employee, requested records related to an investigation into his c... more
The applicant, a former Ministry employee, requested records related to an investigation into his conduct. The Ministry provided severed copies of the investigation report and severed copies of interview transcripts, but said it could not provide copies of the audiotapes of those interviews. Section 22 requires the Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. The Ministry has not complied with its duty under ss. 4(2) and 9(2) regarding copies of the audiotapes or their severing and must provide the applicant with copies of the audiotapes, severed as appropriate
03-12 Mar 31, 2003 Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia Applicant requested a copy of any information in the custody or control of the PGT concerning herse... more
Applicant requested a copy of any information in the custody or control of the PGT concerning herself, including allegations made against her with respect to her mother. The PGT provided some information to the applicant but denied access to a letter and other information it received in confidence from a third party. The PGT was required to withhold the records, as disclosure would reveal the identity of the third party. However, because some of the information supplied in confidence was personal information about the applicant, the PGT is ordered to comply with its s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with a summary of her own personal information
03-10 Mar 7, 2003 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Applicant requested all of his father’s case file reports concerning an assessment of the father’s h... more
Applicant requested all of his father’s case file reports concerning an assessment of the father’s health and related issues. VCHA is authorized to refuse disclosure under s. 19(1)(a)
03-09 Mar 5, 2003 City of Vancouver Applicant requested copies of in camera minutes. Access was denied to portions of the minutes under... more
Applicant requested copies of in camera minutes. Access was denied to portions of the minutes under s. 12(3)(b) of the Act. City authorized under s. 12(3)(b) to withhold the disputed information. Section 25 found not to apply
03-08 Mar 3, 2003 University of Victoria Applicant requested records relating to his previous attendance at UVic as a student. UVic is author... more
Applicant requested records relating to his previous attendance at UVic as a student. UVic is authorized to refuse disclosure under s. 13(1), 14, 15(1)(f) and 19(1)(a) and is required by s. 22(1) to refuse disclosure. UVic also conducted a reasonable search for responsive recor
03-07 Feb 27, 2003 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority The applicant sought records from the public body relating to her deceased husband’s election of a ... more
The applicant sought records from the public body relating to her deceased husband’s election of a particular pension payout option. The public body refused disclosure on the basis that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and that, under s. 22(1), disclosure would unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the deceased. The applicant is acting on behalf of the deceased and is entitled to the records. Alternatively, disclosure of the requested records would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the deceased husband
03-06 Feb 13, 2003 Vancouver Police Department The applicant sought access to records relating to an internal VPD investigation of a harassment co... more
The applicant sought access to records relating to an internal VPD investigation of a harassment complaint against the applicant. All but a small number of pages of the records are excluded from the Act’s operation by s. 66.1 of the Police Act. Section 22(1) requires the VPD to refuse disclosure of third-party personal information in the pages subject to the Act, since disclosure would unreasonably invade third-party personal privacy
03-05 Feb 7, 2003 City of Vancouver Applicant requested access to a copy of third-party records in the City’s possession that set out t... more
Applicant requested access to a copy of third-party records in the City’s possession that set out the third party’s views on and experience with certain commercial activities. The records qualify as third-party commercial information voluntarily supplied to the City in confidence and the evidence establishes that similar information would no longer continue to be supplied to the City if the records are released. The City is required to withhold the records under s. 21(1)
03-04 Jan 28, 2003 University of British Columbia The applicant, a journalist, requested copies of draft or final agreements between UBC and various ... more
The applicant, a journalist, requested copies of draft or final agreements between UBC and various businesses respecting on-campus supply of goods or services by third party businesses. Spectrum sought a review of UBC’s decision to disclose information relating to marketing services agreements between Spectrum and UBC. Section 21(1) does not require UBC to refuse to disclose the disputed information. The information falls under s. 21(1)(a), but the requirements under s. 21(1)(b) and (c) are not established
03-03 Jan 28, 2003 University of British Columbia The applicant, a journalist, requested copies of draft or final agreements between UBC and various ... more
The applicant, a journalist, requested copies of draft or final agreements between UBC and various businesses respecting on-campus supply of goods or services by third party businesses. Telus sought a review of UBC’s decision to disclose a 1999 products and services agreement between them. Section 21(1) does not require UBC to refuse to disclose information in the agreement. The information falls under s. 21(1)(a), but requirements of s. 21(1)(b) and (c) are not established
03-02 Jan 28, 2003 University of British Columbia The applicant, a journalist, asked UBC for access to records respecting on-campus supply of goods or... more
The applicant, a journalist, asked UBC for access to records respecting on-campus supply of goods or services by third-party businesses. UBC decided that ss. 14 and 17(1) authorize, and that s. 21(1) requires, UBC to withhold a 1998 draft agreement with two banks. No evidence was provided regarding s. 21(1), nor is there a basis on the face of the disputed record, or otherwise, to conclude that s. 21(1) applies. Further, neither s. 14 nor s. 17(1) authorizes UBC to refuse disclosure. Section 14 does apply, however, to notes made by UBC’s in-house lawyer on two pages of the draft agreement
03-01 Jan 15, 2003 Ministry of Children and Family Development Applicants requested information about themselves in records related to their daughter who was plac... more
Applicants requested information about themselves in records related to their daughter who was placed in foster care. Director has duty under Child, Family and Community Service Act in responding to an access request to exercise such diligence that it is not reasonable to believe records were omitted in the Director’s response to the request. The Director exercised such diligence in this case
02-60 Dec 17, 2002 Cariboo Community Health Services Society Through her legal counsel, the applicant made a request to the public body for records regarding a c... more
Through her legal counsel, the applicant made a request to the public body for records regarding a complaint she had made respecting mental health services she received from the public body. The public body’s limited severing of personal information from a consultant’s report that had been prepared in response to the complaint is upheld under s. 22. The public body also discharged its duty to the applicant to conduct an adequate search for records.
02-59 Dec 17, 2002 Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicant requested records relating both to herself and to her child, of whom she no longer has... more
The applicant requested records relating both to herself and to her child, of whom she no longer has legal care following apprehension of the child and subsequent court orders. Records had previously been disclosed to the applicant’s various legal counsel three times. The public body is ordered to make additional disclosure to applicant, based on uncertainty of evidence regarding previous disclosures. Sections 76 and 77 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act found to have been properly applied to the information severed or withheld by the public body.
02-58 Dec 10, 2002 British Columbia Assesment Authority The applicant sought access to records relating to property assessments conducted by the BCAA under... more
The applicant sought access to records relating to property assessments conducted by the BCAA under the Assessment Act. Section 25(1)(b) does not require the BCAA to disclose them and s. 14 authorizes the BCAA to refuse to disclose the records. The BCAA failed to discharge its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay, but its ultimate response means no remedy is available respecting its late reply. Since the BCAA has not established that its response to the applicant is complete, it must perform another search for records.
02-57 Nov 29, 2002 Simon Fraser University The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit a mediated settlement... more
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
02-56 Nov 14, 2002 Architectural Institute of British Columbia Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records related to two o... more
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld information.
02-55 Nov 7, 2002 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant made a request to the Ministry for a copy of records pertaining to two investigations ... more
The applicant made a request to the Ministry for a copy of records pertaining to two investigations related to him. The Ministry’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search.
02-54 Nov 5, 2002 Ministry of Health Services The Ministry extended the time for responding to the HEU’s access request by 30 days, but did not se... more
The Ministry extended the time for responding to the HEU’s access request by 30 days, but did not seek permission for a further extension. The Ministry eventually provided a partial response, of some 534 pages, roughly six months after receiving the request. The Ministry says it still needs more time to consult another public body about some 139 pages of the remaining 336 pages of records. It asks to be given until January 29, 2003 to respond. Having failed to comply with its duty under s. 6(1) of the Act to respond completely within the required time, the Ministry is ordered to respond before November 30, 2002.
02-53 Oct 31, 2002 Workers’ Compensation Board The applicant made two requests to the WCB for a copy of records pertaining to him. The WCB’s search... more
The applicant made two requests to the WCB for a copy of records pertaining to him. The WCB’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search.
02-52 Oct 24, 2002 Ministry of Children and Family Development Applicant requested copies of all of his personal information from his employer, a youth correctiona... more
Applicant requested copies of all of his personal information from his employer, a youth correctional facility, and the Ministry’s regional, personnel and financial services offices. Ministry initially failed to respond completely on one set of records but ultimately discharged its s. 6(1) duty. No order to conduct further searches or to provide a complete response is necessary.
02-51 Oct 24, 2002 Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection The applicant requested Ministry records relating to proposals, or a specific designation, that conc... more
The applicant requested Ministry records relating to proposals, or a specific designation, that concerned a wildlife management area in the East Kootenay region. The Ministry acknowledged that the records relate to a matter of public interest but it denied the request for a public interest fee waiver. The applicant’s proposed use of the records would yield a public benefit. A full fee waiver is warranted in this case.
02-50 Oct 21, 2002 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant First Nation requested access to appraisal reports and supporting documentation for pa... more
The applicant First Nation requested access to appraisal reports and supporting documentation for parcels of land included in an offer made by British Columbia and Canada to the First Nation during treaty negotiations. The Ministry is not required by s. 25(1)(b) to disclose the disputed information to the applicant First Nation. The Ministry is required by s. 12(1) and is authorized by s. 17(1)(e) to refuse to disclose the disputed information. The Ministry is not authorized to refuse disclosure under s. 16(1)
02-49 Oct 9, 2002 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Applicant requested physician’s records following examination at physician’s office in UBC Hospital.... more
Applicant requested physician’s records following examination at physician’s office in UBC Hospital. Records found not to be in the custody or under the control of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
02-39 Oct 9, 2002 British Columbia Housing Management Commission Applicant requested copies of correspondence relating to his rent subsidy. Commission provided copie... more
Applicant requested copies of correspondence relating to his rent subsidy. Commission provided copies of records it was able to locate. Commission explained why no further records were available. Ministry found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to assist the applicant.
02-48 Oct 8, 2002 Insurance of British Columbia The applicant lawyer sought a copy of a RCMP traffic accident analysis report in ICBC’s custody. ICB... more
The applicant lawyer sought a copy of a RCMP traffic accident analysis report in ICBC’s custody. ICBC originally denied access under s. 21, but later relied on s. 20(1)(a). ICBC is authorized to refuse disclosure under s. 20(1)(a)
02-47 Sep 30, 2002 City of Vancouver Applicant requested copies of records relating to ongoing negotiations between a group of individua... more
Applicant requested copies of records relating to ongoing negotiations between a group of individuals and the City. Access was denied in part to certain in camera City council meeting minutes under s. 12(3)(b) of the Act. In a subsequent request, access to a memorandum was refused under s. 14 and s. 12(3)(b). The City lawfully severed information under s. 12(3)(b). Records withheld under s. 14 were found subject to solicitor-client privilege
02-46 Sep 12, 2002 Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection The applicant requested access through the Internet to live webcam video feeds of two beehive burner... more
The applicant requested access through the Internet to live webcam video feeds of two beehive burners. One of the Ministry’s regional managers is able to view the live feeds, which arrive over the Internet, on his computer. As the webcam feeds are live and image data is not recorded or stored, the data comprising the live feeds are not a “record” as defined in the Act. Since the Act only applies to records, the webcam feeds are not subject to the right of access
02-44 Sep 10, 2002 Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission The applicant sought her deceased son’s medical records. The applicant is the nearest relative of th... more
The applicant sought her deceased son’s medical records. The applicant is the nearest relative of the deceased son within the meaning of s. 3(c) of the FOI Regulation, but in the circumstances of this case is not acting on his behalf under that section. Assessing her request as a third party, the Commission has correctly refused access to the son’s personal information under s. 22(1)
02-24 Sep 10, 2002 Justice Insitute of British Columbia The applicant requested access to records showing pass/failure and similar assessment rates of asses... more
The applicant requested access to records showing pass/failure and similar assessment rates of assessors in a program the Justice Institute offers. The Justice Institute is not required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the assessors’ names in association with the pass/failure and other information. In the circumstances of this case, disclosure of their names (their personal information) is not disclosure of employment or occupational history. Nor would it disclose the identities of individuals who have supplied confidential personal evaluations or recommendations or any individual’s personal evaluations. Accordingly, no s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy applies and there is otherwise no unreasonable invasion of personal privacy
02-43 Sep 6, 2002 University of Victoria The applicant journalist sought records relating to UVic’s discipline of students, faculty and staff... more
The applicant journalist sought records relating to UVic’s discipline of students, faculty and staff. UVic denied his request for a public interest fee waiver. The requested records relate to a matter of public interest and their dissemination through articles published by the applicant would yield a public benefit. A partial fee waiver is warranted in this case and the parties are encouraged to find ways to further reduce or eliminate that fee
02-42 Aug 30, 2002 Workers' Compensation Board The applicant requested a copy of all WCB records pertaining to her that were contained outside of h... more
The applicant requested a copy of all WCB records pertaining to her that were contained outside of her claim file. The WCB’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search
02-41 Aug 22, 2002 Workers' Compensation Board The applicant made a request for correction of a decision letter and a reiteration letter issued by ... more
The applicant made a request for correction of a decision letter and a reiteration letter issued by a WCB adjudicator, alleging errors in law, interpretation of WCB policy and interpretation of other materials in doing so. The WCB correctly declined to correct both letters and properly annotated the affected records
02-40 Aug 21, 2002 British Columbia Archives Applicant requested review of BC Archives’ failure to respond within s. 7 time limits and to take a ... more
Applicant requested review of BC Archives’ failure to respond within s. 7 time limits and to take a time extension under s. 10. BC Archives found not to have met its ss. 6(1) and 7 duties but not found to have breached s. 10.
02-38 Jul 26, 2002 Office of the Premier & Executive, Ministry of Skills Development and Labour The applicant requested records related to the government’s decision to delay implementation of the ... more
The applicant requested records related to the government’s decision to delay implementation of the WCB’s proposed regulation on smoking in the workplace. His request cited s. 25(1) as possibly requiring disclosure in the public interest. Section 25(1) does not require either public body to disclose information in the public interest. The Premier’s Office is required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and the Ministry is authorized to withhold information under ss. 13 and 14. Each of them must, however, disclose some of the information withheld under s. 13(1) and the Premier’s Office must disclose some withheld under s. 12(1).
02-37 Jul 18, 2002 Simon Fraser University Applicants made a request for letters of reference written by two third parties to a SFU search comm... more
Applicants made a request for letters of reference written by two third parties to a SFU search committee. SFU determined that parts of the letters could be released, including portions that would identify the third party writers. SFU gave the third parties notice of this decision. The third parties requested a review of that decision. The third parties’ personal information is subject to s. 22(3)(h) of the Act and SFU is required to withhold any information that would identify the authors of the letters.
02-36 Jul 17, 2002 University of British Columbia Applicant requested copies of reports of outside professional activities of named faculty members. U... more
Applicant requested copies of reports of outside professional activities of named faculty members. UBC provided severed copies, withholding under ss. 22(1) and 22(3)(d) information on their outside professional activities, use of UBC resources, dates and time spent. UBC found to have applied s. 22 properly to information on outside professional activities, dates and time spent. Section 22 found not to apply to information on any use of UBC resources.
02-35 Jul 16, 2002 College of Opticians of British Columbia The applicant, a College registrant, sought access to “an independent record” that the applicant ref... more
The applicant, a College registrant, sought access to “an independent record” that the applicant referred to as having been “commissioned” regarding the functions of a College employee and the employee’s “discharge of those functions.” The College described any such record as a personnel evaluation. The applicant said the requested record was relevant to a judicial review the applicant contemplated against the College regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated by the College against the applicant. The applicant also said it would be in the public interest to disclose the record in order to subject the College’s activities to public scrutiny. The applicant also sought ancillary records relating to any such record. The College refused, under s. 8(2)(b), to either confirm or deny the existence of requested records. Since disclosure of the existence of a routine personnel evaluation of a College employee would not unreasonably invade the employee’s personal privacy, the College is not authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the requested record. The issue of whether personal information in any such record must be withheld under s. 22 is not presented in this proceeding.
02-34 Jul 16, 2002 Ministry of Skills Development & Labour The applicant requested copies of notes taken by members of a WCB medical review panel constituted a... more
The applicant requested copies of notes taken by members of a WCB medical review panel constituted and sitting under the Workers Compensation Act. The Ministry correctly decided that the notes are excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(b).
02-33 Jul 10, 2002 British Columbia Pension Corporation The applicant, the College & Institute Retirees Association of British Columbia, sought access to a ... more
The applicant, the College & Institute Retirees Association of British Columbia, sought access to a listing of the names and addresses of members or beneficiaries of the College Pension Plan who are currently in receipt of a pension or other benefits from the Plan. Because the personal information is to be used for solicitation purposes, the presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(3)(j) applies. There being no relevant circumstances that favour disclosure, the Pension Corporation is required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose this third-party information.
02-32 Jul 10, 2002 Fraser Health Authority The applicant requested a copy of her own medical file with a mental health facility now operated by... more
The applicant requested a copy of her own medical file with a mental health facility now operated by the public body. It had withheld all of the applicant’s file under s. 19(2) of the Act. The public body is not authorized to refuse disclosure under that section and must review the requested records to determine if third-party personal information must be severed and withheld under s. 22 of the Act.
02-31 Jun 28, 2002 Bowen Island Municipality The applicant company has been involved in litigation with the Hood Point Improvement District, for ... more
The applicant company has been involved in litigation with the Hood Point Improvement District, for which Bowen Island is acting as Receiver. The applicant requested records relating to a specific construction tender process, which was the subject of the litigation against HPID. The HPID estimated a fee of $3,500 and required the applicant to pay the entire estimate before responding, on the basis that the applicant is a “commercial applicant”. The applicant is a commercial applicant. Bowen Island can only charge the actual costs of the services listed in the FOI Regulation.
02-30 Jun 27, 2002 University of Victoria The applicant requested a list of all investments held by the University and by the Foundation. The ... more
The applicant requested a list of all investments held by the University and by the Foundation. The University does not have custody or control of the requested Foundation records.
02-29 Jun 27, 2002 Workers' Compensation Board The applicant made an access request to the WCB for records related to the evaluation of proposals t... more
The applicant made an access request to the WCB for records related to the evaluation of proposals that contractors submitted to a society in response to a request for proposals the society had issued. The WCB disclosed portions of some records that it possessed, but said that other responsive records, which the society had in its possession, were not in the WCB’s custody or under the WCB’s control. The Act does not apply to those other records, as the WCB does not have control of them.
02-28 Jun 12, 2002 Resort Municipality of Whistler Applicant requested copies of records detailing sources and impact of alleged pollution of water sup... more
Applicant requested copies of records detailing sources and impact of alleged pollution of water supplies in the Whistler area, focussing on 1991, as well as property files of certain individual property owners. Applicant asserted that records should be released to public under s. 25; alternatively, he sought a waiver of fees under s. 75(5). Section 25 found not to apply; decision of public body to deny request for fee waiver confirmed.
02-27 Jun 11, 2002 Public Guardiaan And Trustee of British Columbia Applicant requested, on behalf of client, names and addresses of 17 heirs at law to an estate. PGT f... more
Applicant requested, on behalf of client, names and addresses of 17 heirs at law to an estate. PGT found to have properly refused access under s. 22.
02-26 Jun 5, 2002 Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia The applicant sought access to accounts of third party’s finances provided to the PGT respecting the... more
The applicant sought access to accounts of third party’s finances provided to the PGT respecting the deceased third party’s estate. The PGT denied access under s. 22(3)(f). The applicant is not entitled to exercise the third party’s rights under s. 3(b) or (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation. Disclosure is not necessary for the purpose of subjecting the PGT to public scrutiny. Because the third party’s death occurred not long before the applicant made her request, death does not diminish his privacy rights in this case. The PGT withheld the information properly under s. 22.
02-25 May 31, 2002 Ministry of Children and Family Development The applicant requested employment records relating to herself for a specific period of time. The Mi... more
The applicant requested employment records relating to herself for a specific period of time. The Ministry disclosed records, withholding some information under ss. 13(1) and 22. Applicant requested review of severing and Ministry’s search. Ministry disclosed most s. 13(1) information and some records it had inadvertently originally missed in copying records. The Ministry has complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and properly withheld third-party personal information under s. 22. No order is necessary regarding s. 13(1).
02-24 May 23, 2002 Workers’ Compensation Board The applicant made two requests for correction of two decision letters issued by WCB adjudicators, a... more
The applicant made two requests for correction of two decision letters issued by WCB adjudicators, alleging an error of law in one decision and a failure to account for certain WCB appeal decisions in the other. The WCB correctly declined to correct the decision letters and properly annotated the affected records.
02-24 May 23, 2002 Ministry of Attorney General Applicant requested copies of correspondence from 1993. Ministry provided copies of records it was a... more
Applicant requested copies of correspondence from 1993. Ministry provided copies of records it was able to locate. Further searches yielded no more records. Ministry found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records.
02-23 May 22, 2002 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicants obtained an arbitrator’s award, under the Residential Tenancy Act, for rent and utili... more
The applicants obtained an arbitrator’s award, under the Residential Tenancy Act, for rent and utilities owed by their former tenant. They asked the Ministry for her new address to collect the money owed under the award, but the Ministry refused under s. 22(1). None of the s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasions of personal privacy applies here. It is relevant that the address was supplied in confidence to the arbitrator, but it is also relevant to a fair determination of the applicants’ legal rights. The Ministry is not required to refuse access, there being no unreasonable invasion of privacy in this case.
02-22 May 16, 2002 Esquimalt Police Board The applicant police union requested access to minutes of police board in camera meetings held durin... more
The applicant police union requested access to minutes of police board in camera meetings held during a specified period regarding the issue of splitting the police and fire department functions. The police board refused to disclose some portions of the minutes, relying on s. 12(3)(b). The police board is not compelled by s. 25(1) to disclose the withheld information. The police board is authorized by s. 12(3)(b) to refuse disclosure.
02-20 May 15, 2002 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant sought access to the names of all individuals who had, in calendar 2000, made complain... more
The applicant sought access to the names of all individuals who had, in calendar 2000, made complaints to the Law Society about a lawyer’s conduct. The Law Society is not required to disclose this third-party personal information under s. 25(1) and is required to refuse disclosure under s. 22.
02-19 May 14, 2002 City of Coquitlam The applicant sought copies of records, including employment performance appraisals, that relate to ... more
The applicant sought copies of records, including employment performance appraisals, that relate to the applicant, that are both in the City’s custody and located in the offices of the City’s RCMP detachment, in the latter case in the custody of two specified City employees working in the RCMP detachment. The City refused to disclose information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 16(1)(b) and 22 of the Act. The applicant abandoned the request for review in relation to third-party personal information. The City is entitled to withhold some information under ss. 12(3)(b), 14 and 16(1)(b) but must disclose other information it withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), and 16(1)(b). The City initially did not search adequately for records, but quickly corrected this and met its s. 6(1) obligation, thus making an order under s. 58(3) unnecessary. It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
02-18 May 13, 2002 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested records relating to the Ministry’s handling of a complaint that he had made ... more
The applicant requested records relating to the Ministry’s handling of a complaint that he had made to the Ministry. The Ministry conducted an adequate search for records and is authorized by s. 14 to refuse to disclose information to the applicant.
02-17 Apr 24, 2002 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia The applicant, who had complained over 10 years ago to the College about one of its member physician... more
The applicant, who had complained over 10 years ago to the College about one of its member physicians, requested records that included those relating to her complaint against that member. The College is authorized by s. 19(1)(a) (but not s. 19(2)) to refuse disclosure.
02-21 Mar 15, 2002 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General The applicant, who had complained to the Ministry, his employer, about his supervisor’s conduct, sou... more
The applicant, who had complained to the Ministry, his employer, about his supervisor’s conduct, sought access to interview notes and other records related to the Ministry’s investigation of the complaint. The Ministry is required by s. 22 to withhold third-party personal information and the applicant’s personal information, which is inextricably intertwined with third-party personal information. The Ministry must, however, create a summary of the withheld information under s. 22(5).
02-15 Mar 15, 2002 District of Squamish Applicant requested a refund of fees paid for records. Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence... more
Applicant requested a refund of fees paid for records. Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate records relate to a matter of public interest or environmental concerns. No other basis was established for the refund of the fee.
02-14 Mar 15, 2002 Ministry of Skills Development and Labour The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MSDL. The MSDL’s initial search for recor... more
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MSDL. The MSDL’s initial search for records was not adequate, but its later search efforts met its s. 6(1) duty. The MSDL correctly decided that the one record in dispute is excepted from disclosure by s. 14 of the Act.
02-13 Mar 15, 2002 Ministry of the Attorney General The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MAG. The MAG’s search for records was ade... more
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MAG. The MAG’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The MAG also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by s. 14 of the Act.
02-12 Mar 15, 2002 Workers’ Compensation Review Board The applicant requested all records relating to him at the WCRB. The WCRB correctly decided that cer... more
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the WCRB. The WCRB correctly decided that certain of the responsive records are excluded from the Act’s scope by ss. 3(1)(b) and (c). The WCRB’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The WCRB also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by ss. 14 and 22 of the Act.
02-11 Mar 6, 2002 City of Vancouver The applicant requested access to staff reports to City Council, and to minutes of Council meetings,... more
The applicant requested access to staff reports to City Council, and to minutes of Council meetings, regarding a City contract with a third party business. The City is not required to disclose information in the public interest under s. 25. The City is authorized by s. 13 to refuse to disclose advice or recommendations in the records and by s. 14 to refuse to disclose information protected by solicitor client privilege.
02-10 Mar 5, 2002 Ministry of Human Resources The applicant requested all Ministry records relating to him from February 1993. The Ministry disclo... more
The applicant requested all Ministry records relating to him from February 1993. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant from that period and from later dates. The Ministry is required to withhold third-party personal information under s. 22(1) and is authorized to withhold information under s. 19(1)(a).
02-09 Feb 27, 2002 City of White Rock The applicants made an access request to the City that contained a number of elements and asked for ... more
The applicants made an access request to the City that contained a number of elements and asked for answers to questions. In disclosing some responsive records, making others available for inspection, and answering questions raised in the request, the City discharged its duty to assist the applicants under s. 6(1) of the Act.
02-08 Feb 12, 2002 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The applicant insurance adjuster requested copies of two witness statements and an accident diagram,... more
The applicant insurance adjuster requested copies of two witness statements and an accident diagram, providing the consent of both witnesses in doing so. ICBC refused access under s. 14, citing litigation privilege. ICBC is authorized to withhold the records under s. 14 because they were created when litigation was in reasonable prospect and for the dominant purpose of that anticipated litigation.
02-07 Jan 31, 2002 The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) The applicant school trustee requested copies of invoices from a law firm that was acting for the Sc... more
The applicant school trustee requested copies of invoices from a law firm that was acting for the School District in a particular litigation matter. The School District was authorized to refuse access under s. 14. The applicant’s position as a trustee of the School District does not give him special rights of access under the Act.
02-06 Jan 31, 2002 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia The applicant requested particulars of investment securities held, bought and sold by ICBC, includin... more
The applicant requested particulars of investment securities held, bought and sold by ICBC, including transaction-specific information. ICBC refused, under s. 17(1), to disclose any responsive information on the basis that it would reveal details of its investment strategy that could harm its financial interests, lead to undue loss to it and undue gain to its competitors. ICBC later disclosed a security-specific summary of its investment holdings (without transaction details) as at June 30, 2001, and established a policy of disclosing of such a ‘snapshot’ every June 30 and December 31, six months in arrears. Section 17(1) does not authorize ICBC to indefinitely withhold all information relating to securities held, bought or sold for its investment portfolio. The risk of harm to ICBC’s financial interests, by others copying or otherwise unfairly acting on the basis of, its investment strategies must be established by evidence. Risk of this happening can generally be expected to both diminish with the passage of time and be affected by the level of detail and the reporting period involved. The applicant sought to establish an entitlement approaching real time disclosure of ICBC’s transaction specific information. ICBC has tendered sufficient evidence to establish that disclosure of such information – depending on the particular securities, investment strategies, market conditions and other factors involved – could reasonably be expected to harm its interests under s. 17(1)(d). ICBC was authorized under s. 17(1)(d) to refuse further disclosure, except for biannual ‘snapshot’ investment portfolio summaries (without transaction details) for June 30 and December 31, 1999 and June 30, 2000. Disclosure of the requested information is not required in the public interest under s. 25(1)(b).
02-05 Jan 31, 2002 St Paul’s Hospital The applicants requested correction of their son’s medical records and destruction of a medical repo... more
The applicants requested correction of their son’s medical records and destruction of a medical report about him. The Hospital agreed to correct two factual errors and attached correction correspondence to the son’s medical records, but would not destroy the medical report. The Hospital acted appropriately in annotating the records with the correction correspondence and in refusing to destroy the medical report.
02-04 Jan 30, 2002 British Columbia Housing Management Commission The applicant, the president of an unsuccessful corporate bidder for a construction project, request... more
The applicant, the president of an unsuccessful corporate bidder for a construction project, requested access to tender-related project records. BCHMC refused, under s. 21, to disclose a list of subcontractors submitted by a third-party bidder. No general rule can be laid down, on the evidence in this case certainly, about protection for tender-related information. On the evidence in this case, BCHMC is not required to refuse disclosure of the list.
02-03 Jan 24, 2002 College of Pharmacists of British Columbia The applicant requested records relating to the College’s accidental disclosure, in 1997, of prescri... more
The applicant requested records relating to the College’s accidental disclosure, in 1997, of prescription-related information of two hospital patients. The College initially failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, but corrected that failure by searching again for records during mediation. The College is authorized to withhold a legal opinion under s. 14. The College is required by s. 22(1) to withhold third party personal information.
02-02 Jan 23, 2002 Central Saanich Police Service The applicant requested the .name of an individual who had approached police about distributing post... more
The applicant requested the .name of an individual who had approached police about distributing posters about the applicant in the community. Police refused access to third party’s name, first under s. 19(1)(a) and later also under s. 22. Section 19(1)(a) found not to apply, but police found to have withheld name correctly under s. 22.
02-01 Jan 21, 2002 Law Society of British Columbia The applicant made three access requests for records relating to a number of members and former memb... more
The applicant made three access requests for records relating to a number of members and former members of the Law Society. The Law Society properly extended the time to respond to the applicant’s third request. The Law Society also properly refused to waive, on the basis the applicant could not afford to pay or that it was otherwise fair to do so, the fee it estimated for the applicant’s second request. The Law Society correctly: decided that draft decisions of its Special Compensation Fund Committee are excluded from the Act’s scope by s. 3(1)(b); determined that records related to an Ombudsman's investigation are excluded from the Act’s scope by s. 3(1)(c); withheld information under s. 19(1)(a); refused to confirm or deny the existence of personal information under s. 8(2)(b); refused to disclose information under s. 14; and determined that it was required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose third-party personal information. The Law Society is not required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose a small amount of business-related information in one record. The Law Society is not required by s. 25 to disclose information without delay. There is no need to consider the Law Society’s reliance on ss. 13(1), 15 or 17.
01-54 Dec 21, 2001 The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) The applicant requested copies of communications about herself, dating from 1989, that the School Di... more
The applicant requested copies of communications about herself, dating from 1989, that the School District had in its custody. The School District properly refused access on the basis that it had received the applicant’s personal information, and third-party personal information, in confidence and disclosure would unreasonably invade third-party personal privacy. The applicant has not shown that the information is relevant to fair determination of her rights or that other relevant circumstances favour disclosure. As it is not possible to sever or summarize the records without disclosing third-party personal information and unreasonably invading third-party personal privacy, the School District must withhold the entire communications.
01-53 Dec 21, 2001 The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 84 (Vancouver Island West) Applicant requested copies of records created during School District’s investigation of applicant’s ... more
Applicant requested copies of records created during School District’s investigation of applicant’s complaint about another employee, i.e., the investigation report, a list of witnesses interviewed, the applicant’s submissions and interview notes, the respondent’s submissions and interview notes and the investigator’s rough notes of witness interviews. The School District is not required by s. 22(1) to withhold information that would identify the employee complained about or the applicant’s allegations. The School District is also not required, in this case, to withhold the investigator’s findings that each of the applicant’s allegations were not substantiated, because, as material in the inquiry confirms, the applicant knows this information. The School District must, however, withhold the third party’s personal information consisting of what witnesses said (or the investigator observed) about the third party’s workplace behaviour or actions, as this is the third party’s employment history. The School District also must withhold information that would identify witnesses who supplied personal information of the applicant or the third party in confidence. The School District must provide the applicant with a summary of that information under s. 22(5).
01-52 Dec 3, 2001 Ministry of Water, Air and Land Protection Applicant conservation groups requested access to records disclosing the geographic locations of gri... more
Applicant conservation groups requested access to records disclosing the geographic locations of grizzly bear kills since the Ministry began keeping such records. One applicant sought only hunting kill locations. The other applicant sought both hunting and non-hunting kill locations. The Ministry disclosed the Ministry’s geographic wildlife management units in which each kill occurred, as well as the date and type of kill, and the sex, maturity and age of the animal, where recorded, but concluded that, if the Ministry could not ensure the confidentiality of more specific kill location data, hunting regulations and grizzly bear management strategies could be compromised and hunters would no longer provide detailed kill data. The Ministry is not authorized by s. 18(b) to refuse to disclose more specific kill location data as it has not established that disclosure could reasonably be expected to damage grizzly bears or interfere with their conservation.
01-51 Nov 30, 2001 Ministry of Attorney General The applicant requested copies of court decisions relating to firearms matters and a copy of a file ... more
The applicant requested copies of court decisions relating to firearms matters and a copy of a file relating to a specific case under the Firearms Act (Canada). Applicant also requested a fee waiver relating to another access request. Court file copies of court decisions are not excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(a) simply because originals or copies are in court files or as records “of a judge”. The Ministry is entitled to withhold the portions of the firearms reference file that it withheld, and the case law collection, under s. 14. The Ministry also could refuse access to the copies of court decisions because they are available for purchase by the public within the meaning of s. 20(1)(a). The Ministry’s refusal of a public interest fee waiver relating to policy records is also upheld, as is its denial of a waiver on the basis of inability to afford the fee.
01-50 Nov 27, 2001 Ministry of Children and Family Development Applicant sought correction of information provided by police and recorded in Ministry files. Applic... more
Applicant sought correction of information provided by police and recorded in Ministry files. Applicant provided some documentary evidence to back up his correction request. Ministry annotated file. No basis for intervention in Ministry’s refusal to make correction. Commissioner finds Ministry’s annotation of files, and not “records”, did not meet s. 23 and recommends annotation of record
01-49 Oct 17, 2001 Ministgry of the Attorney General Applicant requested records related to an investigation he believed had been done about him during a... more
Applicant requested records related to an investigation he believed had been done about him during a job competition. Ministry treated request as one for updated disclosure and said it had no records post-dating earlier request. Applicant requested review of adequacy of search. Ministry found to have conducted adequate search
01-48 Oct 17, 2001 City of Surrey Applicants sought copies of any letters written to the City by an individual about whom the applican... more
Applicants sought copies of any letters written to the City by an individual about whom the applicants had made a noise complaint. The City refused access to any portion of the two responsive letters, citing ss. 22(1), 22(2)(f), 22(3)(b) and 22(3)(h). The City later reconsidered its decision at the applicants’ request, but continued to deny access, relying further on ss. 15(1)(a), (f) and 15(2)(b) of the Act. The City also later raised s. 19(1). The City is required to withhold the telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the letters’ author, but must disclose the rest of the letters to the applicants. None of the exceptions relied on by the City authorizes or requires it to withhold the applicants’ own personal information
01-47 Oct 12, 2001 Insurance of British Columbia The applicant, a union representing ICBC employees, submitted a series of requests for information o... more
The applicant, a union representing ICBC employees, submitted a series of requests for information on several hundred senior ICBC employees. ICBC created software in order to respond and then provided computer-generated records to the applicant. The applicant also submitted requests for records on alternatives for ICBC’s corporate structure, to which ICBC responded by providing briefings. The applicant requested reviews of ICBC’s failure to respond in time, of a fee estimate, of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 6 duty to assist and of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 8 duty to inform the applicant of a decision to refuse access. ICBC is found to have calculated the estimated fee in compliance with s. 75. ICBC is found largely not to have complied with its s. 6, 7 or 8 duties, but no order is necessary respecting ss. 6-8
01-46 Oct 11, 2001 Insurance of British Columbia The applicant, an insured of ICBC, was involved in a car accident. ICBC admitted liability on his pa... more
The applicant, an insured of ICBC, was involved in a car accident. ICBC admitted liability on his part and later settled a personal injury claim brought by the third party. After the settlement, the applicant sought access to claim-related records. ICBC disclosed numerous records, but withheld all or part of others under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1). ICBC not authorized to withhold information under ss. 14 or 17(1), but required to withhold certain third-party personal information under s. 22(1)
01-45 Oct 3, 2001 University of British Columbia Applicant made two requests for access to specific dated letters in the custody of UBC. UBC disclose... more
Applicant made two requests for access to specific dated letters in the custody of UBC. UBC disclosed all but one, which could not be found and which UBC had reason to believe did not exist. UBC fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records
01-44 Oct 3, 2001 University of British Columbia Applicant made two access requests for specific letters in the custody of UBC. Only one could not be... more
Applicant made two access requests for specific letters in the custody of UBC. Only one could not be found, because it did not exist. UBC fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records
01-43 Oct 3, 2001 University of British Columbia The applicant requested access to records related to his complaint to the Ombudsman of British Colum... more
The applicant requested access to records related to his complaint to the Ombudsman of British Columbia. The issue of whether records created as a result of any communications between a retired UBC professor and the Ombudsman’s office are in UBC’s custody or control not considered. The applicant is not entitled to records sent to UBC by the Ombudsman office during its investigation, as such records are excluded from the Act by s. 3(1)(c). The applicant is also not entitled, on that basis, to notes made by UBC employee of telephone conversations with the investigating Ombudsman officer, disclosing what the Ombudsman officer had said about the Ombudsman investigation. UBC is also entitled to withhold internal UBC records that relate to UBC’s organization or conduct of its response to Ombudsman inquiries during the investigation
01-42 Oct 3, 2001 Ombudsman of British Columbia The applicant, who had made a complaint to the Ombudsman about UBC, requested access to records in t... more
The applicant, who had made a complaint to the Ombudsman about UBC, requested access to records in the custody of the Ombudsman related to investigation and disposition of that complaint under the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman’s office properly declined to respond, on the basis that the responsive records are excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(c) because they are in the custody of the Ombudsman, an officer of the Legislature, and relate to the exercise of the Ombudsman’s functions under an enactment, the Ombudsman Act.
01-41 Sep 18, 2001 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Applicant requested records related to communications regarding a legal action between himself, on h... more
Applicant requested records related to communications regarding a legal action between himself, on his son’s behalf, and ICBC. ICBC disclosed records but applicant not satisfied with ICBC’s search. ICBC searched again, disclosed more records and withheld others under s. 14. ICBC found to have misinterpreted request and to have failed to conduct a proper search. ICBC found to have later rectified its failure to interpret the request reasonably, but some records it found and considered still out of scope were in fact subject to the request. ICBC ordered to process additional responsive records. ICBC also found to have withheld records properly under s. 14
01-40 Aug 23, 2001 Workers' Compensation Board As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financi... more
As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financial information, from wage loss claims made by employees of the employer to the WCB. The applications arose out of concerns by employers generally that the WCB had, over a number of years, over-estimated initial wage rates for casual workers. WCB refused to disclose such information, relying on ss. 17 and 22. During the inquiry, the WCB abandoned its reliance on s. 17 and relied only on s. 22. The WCB is not required to refuse disclosure of the wage-related information, as disclosure would not, for a number of reasons, unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the employer’s workers.
01-39 Aug 16, 2001 Translink Applicants requested access to two contracts for operation of commuter rail service, a services agre... more
Applicants requested access to two contracts for operation of commuter rail service, a services agreement and a crewing agreement. Translink decided it was not required to refuse access under s. 21(1) of the Act and CPR requested a review of that decision. Although confidentiality is present through the contracts’ terms, Translink is not required to refuse access as neither agreement contains information supplied to Translink. CPR also has not established that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm significantly its competitive position or interfere significantly with its negotiating position.
01-38 Aug 10, 2001 the Board of School Trustees for School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) Applicant sought access to letter sent by a principal to a coach at her daughter’s school, regarding... more
Applicant sought access to letter sent by a principal to a coach at her daughter’s school, regarding an incident involving her daughter. NVSD initially refused to disclose any part of the letter but later disclosed some. NVSD is required to withhold coach’s personal information consisting of evaluations of, or opinions about, her actions related to the incident. Other information cannot be withheld, either because it is not anyone’s personal information or because its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the coach or other individuals.
01-37 Aug 9, 2001 Ministry of Children and Family Services The applicant had received, under the 1995 Adoption Act, a copy of his birth registration, which ide... more
The applicant had received, under the 1995 Adoption Act, a copy of his birth registration, which identified a particular woman as his birth mother. Applicant then requested access to records under the Act respecting his adoption, in order to establish his aboriginal ancestry. Ministry refused to disclose the name of the applicant’s putative birth father or personal information of other third parties. The applicant is not entitled to the personal information, as its disclosure would unreasonably invade the father’s personal privacy. Disclosure of identifying information of birth parents almost always will unreasonably invade their personal privacy under s. 22(1). Applicant also is not entitled to personal information of other third parties compiled in connection with his adoption, as disclosure would unreasonably invade their personal privacy.
01-36 Aug 8, 2001 Minstry of Water, Land and Air Protection The third-party scrap tire recycler supplied the Ministry with a list containing names and addresses... more
The third-party scrap tire recycler supplied the Ministry with a list containing names and addresses of scrap tire generators in the province. The list was used to generate another list and then send to those listed a letter about financial incentives to recycle tires. The applicant, who represents a competitor of the third party, sought access to the list. Ministry decided it was not required by s. 21(1) to withhold the list and the third party requested a review of that decision. Ministry is not required to refuse access under s. 21. The list is commercial information of the third party, but the third party did not establish that the information was supplied to the Ministry in confidence. Third party also did not show that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to its competitive position or negotiating position or that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in undue financial loss or gain to anyone.
01-35 Jul 25, 2001 Ministry of Forests Applicant requested all records relating to a forest company’s proposals for construction of logging... more
Applicant requested all records relating to a forest company’s proposals for construction of logging roads and cutting of timber in a specific watershed. Applicant’s request was the latest in a series of over 30 requests he had made for access to records. Many of his requests sought updated disclosures of same types of records. Ministry had charged modest fees for a small number of earlier requests. Ministry refused to waive the fee for this request on the basis that the records did not relate to a matter of public interest. Although the Ministry’s conclusion is incorrect, the Commissioner confirms the estimated fee on the basis of other factors.
01-34 Jul 18, 2001 Vancouver Police Department Applicant requested records about himself in 1998 and again in 2000. In 1998, the VPD provided all r... more
Applicant requested records about himself in 1998 and again in 2000. In 1998, the VPD provided all releasable responsive records and, in 2000, only those releasable records that post-dated records from 1998 request. In 2000, applicant again wanted disclosure of all records, including those released in 1998. VPD found to have met its s. 6(1) duty in supplying updated disclosure only.
01-33 Jul 11, 2001 Workers' Compensation Board Applicant sought his own claim file records from the WCB. WCB provided some records immediately and ... more
Applicant sought his own claim file records from the WCB. WCB provided some records immediately and provided others later, in stages. WCB discovered and provided further records during the course of mediation by this Office. WCB found to ultimately have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty. Section 22(3)(a) found to apply to names and medical information of other WCB claimants in requested records.
01-32 Jul 4, 2001 District of Saanich & Township of Esquimalt Applicant made access requests, to the two public bodies, regarding communication of his personal in... more
Applicant made access requests, to the two public bodies, regarding communication of his personal information from one to the other. He received records from each, but alleged that both public bodies failed to conduct adequate searches for responsive records. Both public bodies were found to have conducted adequate searches for records as required by s. 6(1).
01-31 Jul 3, 2001 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Applicant sought vendor numbers for all ICBC suppliers whose status as such had, throughout ICBCs ex... more
Applicant sought vendor numbers for all ICBC suppliers whose status as such had, throughout ICBCs existence, been revoked, reinstated, suspended or refused. ICBC refused disclosure of certain records under ss. 17 and 21(1)(c)(iii). ICBC’s initial submission consisted of its disclosure of a computer printout listing suppliers whose numbers had been suspended or revoked and abandoned its reliance on ss. 17 and 21. ICBC at that time said it kept no record of, and could not generate a record of, any businesses who had been refused supplier numbers when they applied or of suppliers whose supplier numbers had been reinstated after suspension or revocation. ICBC is not obliged under s. 6(2) to create a record responding to the applicant’s request.
01-30 Jul 3, 2001 University of British Columbia Applicant, who is one subject of a letter written to UBC by another student, is entitled to access t... more
Applicant, who is one subject of a letter written to UBC by another student, is entitled to access to more information than UBC disclosed. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld by UBC, including the applicant’s own personal information, but s. 22(1) requires UBC to withhold third parties’ personal information.
01-29 Jun 27, 2001 Okanagan Similkameen Health Region & Penticton Regional Hospital Applicant is entitled to portions of his own mental health records. Refusal to disclose certain port... more
Applicant is entitled to portions of his own mental health records. Refusal to disclose certain portions was not justified under s. 19(2), but the vast majority of the balance was properly withheld under s. 19(1)(a). The Hospital was ordered to search again for computer records of the applicant’s treatment.
01-28 Jun 14, 2001 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ICBC is authorized by s. 13(1) to withhold some of the information it severed from a consultant’s re... more
ICBC is authorized by s. 13(1) to withhold some of the information it severed from a consultant’s report on distance-based insurance pricing, but much of the withheld portion of the report is “factual material” under s. 13(2)(a) and must be released.
01-27 Jun 12, 2001 Ministry of Attorney General Applicant requested correction of copies of various records in the custody of the Criminal Justice B... more
Applicant requested correction of copies of various records in the custody of the Criminal Justice Branch. Commissioner rejects CJB’s argument that any copy of a record that is also in a court file is excluded from the Act by s. 3(1)(a). Copies of such records in the custody or under the control of public bodies are covered by the Act. Ministry properly refused applicant’s request for correction of information. Applicant had, in some respects, not requested correction of “personal information”. He also had not clearly specified any requested correction or provided any basis to support any correction.
01-25 Jun 4, 2001 Workers' Compensation Board Applicant requested records related to calculation of benefits expected after WCB decision. WCB refu... more
Applicant requested records related to calculation of benefits expected after WCB decision. WCB refused disclosure of most information, under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22. Sections 14 and 17 found not to apply, as WCB has not established that solicitor client privilege applies nor that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its financial interests. Section 13(1) found not to apply, except for one item, as records do not contain advice or recommendations. Because s. 22(4)(e) applied to information the WCB had withheld under s. 22, that information must be disclosed except for one item to which section 22(3)(g) applies. No waiver of privilege found.
01-24 Jun 4, 2001 Ministry of Transportation and Highways Applicant sought public interest fee waiver on basis of its doing research for a First Nation relate... more
Applicant sought public interest fee waiver on basis of its doing research for a First Nation related to a possible claim against the government. Public interest not established for s. 75(5)(b) only because applicant is or represents a First Nation. Requested records themselves must relate to a matter of public interest. Ministry authorized to deny waiver on that ground. Also no sufficient evidence that applicant could not afford to pay the fee or that fee waiver otherwise fair.
01-23 Jun 1, 2001 Ministry for Children and Families Applicants sought removal from Ministry files of professional reports or opinions with which they di... more
Applicants sought removal from Ministry files of professional reports or opinions with which they disagreed. Request is outside scope of corrections of errors or omissions under s. 23 of the Child, Family and Community Service Regulation. Applicants failed to back up claims of error in factual information in files and did not make submissions in this inquiry. No basis to interfere with Ministry’s refusal to make corrections. No basis for intervention in manner of annotation, though commissioner finds Ministry’s annotation of files, and not “records”, did not meet s. 23.
01-22 May 31, 2001 Inquiry regarding ICBC Records An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-ma... more
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
01-22 May 31, 2001 Financial Institutions Commission Applicant sought access to list of companies which had been the subject of complaints to FICOM from ... more
Applicant sought access to list of companies which had been the subject of complaints to FICOM from 1995 to 2000. FICOM is not required to refuse access under s. 21 or s. 22. FICOM has not established that “commercial information” was supplied to it in confidence. Nor has it shown that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly harm third parties’ competitive positions nor a reasonable expectation that similar information would no longer be supplied. FICOM also failed to establish that disclosure would reveal the identities of complainants and thus s. 22 does not apply. Applicant failed to advance s. 25 arguments. Section 25 found in any case not to apply.
01-21 May 25, 2001 Capilano College Applicant requested a copy of a 1997 exclusive sponsorship agreement between IDEA, a society the mem... more
Applicant requested a copy of a 1997 exclusive sponsorship agreement between IDEA, a society the members of which are educational bodies, and Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. Capilano College initially denied access to most of the agreement under s. 17(1) and s. 21(1), but later disclosed further portions. Section 25 found not to require disclosure in the public interest. Remaining withheld portions of the agreement required to be disclosed because s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) requirements not met.
01-20 May 25, 2001 University of British Columbia Applicant requested a copy of a 1995 exclusive sponsorship agreement between the University of Briti... more
Applicant requested a copy of a 1995 exclusive sponsorship agreement between the University of British Columbia, its student society and Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. UBC initially denied access to most of the agreement under s. 17(1) and s. 21(1), but later disclosed further portions. Section 25 found not to require disclosure in the public interest. Remaining withheld portions of agreement required to be disclosed because s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) requirements not met.
01-19 May 25, 2001 Workers’ Compensation Board Applicant sought copies of interview notes taken by WCB’s accident investigator, and names of witnes... more
Applicant sought copies of interview notes taken by WCB’s accident investigator, and names of witnesses found in the investigator’s accident investigation report, regarding the workplace death of her husband. Investigation was conducted in 1998. After close of inquiry, WCB abandoned reliance on s. 15(1). WCB continued to withhold personal information of some witnesses under s. 22(1). Witnesses’ identities are known to each other and the witnesses are known to the applicant. WCB not required to withhold personal information under s. 22(1), including factual observations. Section 22(5) not applicable.
01-18 Apr 26, 2001 Workers’ Compensation Board Applicant is not entitled to have access to complete copies of résumés submitted by third-party cons... more
Applicant is not entitled to have access to complete copies of résumés submitted by third-party consultants to the WCB. Presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(3)(d) is not rebutted by any relevant circumstances, including fair determination of the applicant’s rights or subjecting the WCB to public scrutiny. As an exception, applicant is entitled to portions of records showing the professional qualifications held by the counsellors, which they have held out to the WCB and the public for business purposes. WCB raised s. 17 for the first time in its initial submission. WCB not entitled to raise that discretionary exception at inquiry stage.
01-17 Apr 25, 2001 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority BC Hydro withheld information from the OPEIU respecting a proposed split of BC Hydro’s existing pens... more
BC Hydro withheld information from the OPEIU respecting a proposed split of BC Hydro’s existing pension plan into two plans. BC Hydro is not entitled to withhold information under s. 13(1), as the information did not qualify as, or implicitly reveal, advice or recommendations. BC Hydro authorized to withhold information it withheld under s. 17(1), since its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm BC Hydro’s financial interests.
01-16 Apr 20, 2001 Simon Fraser University The applicant requested access to her own personal information from SFU in 1998 and at that time req... more
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from SFU in 1998 and at that time requested a review of SFU’s decision to refuse access to certain information. That request for review was settled during mediation, during which SFU disclosed further information. Applicant later changed her mind and, in 2000, made the same access request to SFU for the same record. SFU refused to process the request or issue a decision. SFU argued that, because the matter was resolved during previous review request’s mediation, commissioner had (under the functus officio doctrine) no jurisdiction to conduct this inquiry. SFU also argued this inquiry could not question earlier mediation outcome on the bases of res judicata and issue estoppel. Settlement during mediation is not a ‘decision’ to which doctrines of functus officio, issue estoppel or res judicata apply. The commissioner has the authority, however, to control abuse of the Part 5 process by applicants. The Commissioner can, in an inquiry, decline to order a public body to process an access request where a number of conditions are met. Fairness is the touchstone in determining whether a later request should be allowed. Here, applicant’s second request was, in the circumstances, an abuse of that process and fairness does not require that the applicant be permitted to insist that the second request proceed. SFU not required to process second request.
01-15 Apr 20, 2001 Ministry of Agriculture and Food Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1)... more
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
01-14 Apr 10, 2001 Superannuation Commission Applicant not entitled to portions of agendas, minutes and reports of meetings which disclose substa... more
Applicant not entitled to portions of agendas, minutes and reports of meetings which disclose substance of Cabinet deliberations or advice or recommendations to a public body. Public body required under s. 13(2)(a) to disclose small amounts of factual material that it had withheld under s. 13(1).
01-13 Apr 10, 2001 Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Applicant requested information relating to surveys of First Nations moose harvesting, in two region... more
Applicant requested information relating to surveys of First Nations moose harvesting, in two regions of British Columbia, in each of three years. Ministry provided some data, but refused to disclose numbers of moose killed by aboriginal persons in Region 6 in each of the three years. The Ministry’s evidence clearly established that all participating First Nations took part in the survey only on the express, repeated basis that all data would be kept in confidence. The evidence also established that the data had been collected in each First Nation by representatives of the First Nation’s government and then supplied to the Ministry’s survey contractor. Disclosure of the disputed information could reasonably be expected to harm the British Columbia’s government’s conduct of relations with the participating aboriginal governments and could reasonably be expected to reveal information received in confidence from those aboriginal governments. The Ministry’s head properly considered public interest factors in deciding not to disclose the information.
01-12 Apr 9, 2001 British Columbia Gaming Commission BCGC employee conducted a field review of activities of a society, NISS, as a result of which NISS’s... more
BCGC employee conducted a field review of activities of a society, NISS, as a result of which NISS’s bingo licence was revoked in accordance with its terms and conditions and BCGC policy. BCGC field review qualified as investigation into a possible violation of law. Personal information in the review report of individuals associated with NISS was therefore compiled, and identifiable, as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law. Review report also contained information respecting the assets and finances of those individuals. Presumed unreasonable invasions of third party privacy not rebutted by applicant.
01-11 Mar 26, 2001 City of Vancouver The applicant, owner of a commercial property in the City, sought access to a list showing street ad... more
The applicant, owner of a commercial property in the City, sought access to a list showing street addresses of 125 sites determined by the City to have heritage value or significance. The City is authorized to refuse access under s. 18(a), but not under s. 16(1)(a)(iii). Disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in damage to sites that have anthropological or heritage value.
01-10 Mar 22, 2001 University of Victoria In response to the applicant’s request for all records containing personal information about him “at... more
In response to the applicant’s request for all records containing personal information about him “at the University”, UVic disclosed many records but withheld portions of records under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14 and 22 of the Act. Applicant alleged that UVic failed to perform its search obligation under s. 6, but UVic was found to have undertaken a reasonable search for records. Section 25 did not require disclosure in the public interest. UVic was authorized to withhold information under ss. 13 and 14 (ss. 3(1)(c) and 22 having been removed from inquiry by the parties’ agreement).
01-09 Mar 16, 2001 Vancouver Police Board Applicant is entitled to access to account for services rendered by a lawyer to the Board pursuant t... more
Applicant is entitled to access to account for services rendered by a lawyer to the Board pursuant to an appointment to investigate and report under the Police (Discipline) Regulation.
01-08 Feb 27, 2001 Ministry of Attorney General Third parties wrote complaint letter to RCMP about views publicly expressed by RCMP officer about ga... more
Third parties wrote complaint letter to RCMP about views publicly expressed by RCMP officer about gay and lesbian issues. Ministry disclosed most of the letter to applicant. Ministry not authorized by s. 15(2)(b) or s. 19(1)(a), or required by s. 22(1), to withhold most of the remaining information in the letter. Small portions of remaining information, however, had to be withheld under s. 22(1).
01-07 Feb 23, 2001 Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security The applicant requested a copy of confidential investigation reports, and confidential witness state... more
The applicant requested a copy of confidential investigation reports, and confidential witness statements, respecting two investigations into the applicant’s complaint about a manager’s behaviour. Ministry disclosed the bulk of the investigation reports in both investigations. The withheld witness statements and other information about the manager’s behaviour are part of manager’s employment history under s. 22(3)(d), but are not personal evaluations or personnel evaluations of the manager under s. 22(3)(g). The information, which was submitted by third parties in confidence under s. 22(2)(f), is not relevant to a fair determination of the applicant’s legal rights, so s. 22(2)(c) does not apply. Disclosure would not unfairly expose third parties to harm or unfairly damage their reputations under s. 22(2)(e) or (h). The applicant is not entitled to personal information submitted in confidence for purposes of the investigations, including the manager’s personal information and the witnesses’ personal information. Section 22(5) summary not required in this case.
01-06 Feb 6, 2001 Greater Vancouver Regional District The applicant sought access to a two-page draft settlement offer regarding small claims litigation b... more
The applicant sought access to a two-page draft settlement offer regarding small claims litigation between applicant and the GVRD. The GVRD is not authorized to refuse access under s. 14. Litigation privilege did not apply, since letter had been drafted for the purpose of settlement discussions with the applicant and applicant read the letter at a settlement meeting. The fact that the GVRD retained the draft at the end of the meeting did not alter the fact that, consistent with its author’s intent, contents of the draft settlement offer were communicated to the applicant. In any case, disclosure of the draft’s contents to the applicant waived any litigation privilege. Although s. 17 (and others) may provide comparable protection, settlement privilege recognized at common law is not independently incorporated under s. 14 and the GVRD could not invoke it under s. 14.
01-05 Jan 29, 2001 City of Vancouver The applicant requested records from the City relating to a complaint he made against a member of Va... more
The applicant requested records from the City relating to a complaint he made against a member of Vancouver Police Department. City responded that it was unable to locate any records in its custody or under its control. City found to have conducted reasonable search under s. 6(1).
01-04 Jan 29, 2001 Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia Applicant requested records relating to revocation of his membership in the Institute of Chartered A... more
Applicant requested records relating to revocation of his membership in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of BC. Applicant requested waiver of Institute’s fee estimate, for copying, of “several hundred dollars”, based on 25 cents per page. Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate records relate to a matter of public interest. There was also insufficient evidence to find that the applicant cannot afford the payment or to excuse payment for any other reason. No other basis was established for waiver of the fee.
01-03 Jan 26, 2001 British Columbia Lottery Corporation The applicant made a request, in 1998, for access to contracts between BCLC and an actor, for the la... more
The applicant made a request, in 1998, for access to contracts between BCLC and an actor, for the latter’s services in television advertisements. In Order No. 315-1999, the previous commissioner upheld BCLC’s decision to refuse access. The same applicant applied again for access to the same two contracts and two later renewal contracts. Doctrine of issue estoppel can apply under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. All three criteria for issue estoppel were met in this case: (1) the same question had previously been decided, (2) the previous decision was a final decision of a judicial character, and (3) the parties were the same in the previous case and this one. The applicant is not entitled to access.
01-02 Jan 25, 2001 Office of the Premier and Executive Operations Applicant requested records related to Melville Creek and Cayoosh Creek ski development. Public body... more
Applicant requested records related to Melville Creek and Cayoosh Creek ski development. Public body severed two letters under s. 12(1). Public body found to have applied s. 12(1) properly.
01-01 Jan 16, 2001 Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia Applicant requested access to the number of abortions performed at Children’s and Women’s Health Cen... more
Applicant requested access to the number of abortions performed at Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia for two years, including “the gestational age noted”. Public body denied access under s. 19(1). Public body also relied on s. 15(1)(f) and (l). Public body was authorized under s. 19(1)(a) to deny access to the requested information. Evidence provided by public body as a whole, including in camera evidence, established that, in the case of this particular health care facility and its operations, the withheld information could be used, together with other publicly available information, to identify abortion service providers. Evidence provided by public body established reasonable expectation of threat to the mental or physical health or safety of those individuals.
00-53 Dec 21, 2000 Inquiry regarding Simon Fraser University employment-related records Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SF... more
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).
00-52 Dec 19, 2000 Inquiry regarding British Columbia Securities Commission investigation records Applicant, who was formerly investigated by BCSC, sought access to BCSC files about its (now closed)... more
Applicant, who was formerly investigated by BCSC, sought access to BCSC files about its (now closed) investigation. BCSC was entitled to withhold information that would identify confidential informants and was required to withhold third party personal information compiled as part of its investigation into a possible violation of law.
00-27 Nov 20, 2000 Inquiry regarding University of British Columbia Law Faculty records Applicant sought access to his own personal information, and a large variety of records related to g... more
Applicant sought access to his own personal information, and a large variety of records related to grading, exam design, failure, withdrawal and readmission, from UBC’s Faculty of Law. He also requested that a failing mark on his transcript be corrected to a passing mark. UBC found to have searched adequately for responsive records, except with respect to one record. Sections 6(1), 7 and 10 do not apply to applicant’s correction request. Section 28 cannot be used to analyze and alter UBC’s policies and procedures. UBC was not required to make the requested correction under s. 29(1). Although UBC was not required under s. 29(2) to make the annotation in the manner sought by the applicant, an annotation was required. UBC was not required to disclose records under s. 25.
00-50 Nov 9, 2000 Inquiry regarding ICBC records Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resu... more
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC did not succeed in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for some of the records. ICBC is required in each case to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
00-49 Nov 8, 2000 Inquiry regarding City of New Westminster records Applicant entitled to access to some records over which City claimed solicitor client privilege, but... more
Applicant entitled to access to some records over which City claimed solicitor client privilege, but not others. City provided no evidence to support counsel's assertion that solicitor client privilege applied to certain records. Absent supporting evidence, certain records did not themselves support City's assertions. City entitled to withhold some records under s. 12(3)(b), but not others. City found not to have performed its duty under s. 6 (1) and required to search again for records.
00-48 Oct 25, 2000 Inquiry regarding City of Vancouver records Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information relating to employment history ... more
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information relating to employment history or educational history as it relates to qualification of third parties for specific employment positions. Applicant also not entitled to personal information of third parties relating to their resignation from employment. Public body found to have fulfilled its duties under s. 6(1).
00-47 Oct 19, 2000 Inquiry regarding Malaspina University-College records Applicant’s signing of a contractual release and waiver in favour of public body did not preclude ap... more
Applicant’s signing of a contractual release and waiver in favour of public body did not preclude applicant from making subsequent access request for records related to him or excuse public body from responding. Public policy dictates that rights and obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act cannot be waived by contract. Public body was required to respond to applicant’s access request, which it had done, but applicant was not entitled to have access to records covered by s. 14. It was not necessary to consider s. 22 issues relating to records protected by s. 14.
00-46 Oct 12, 2000 Inquiry regarding the Vancouver Police Board As one of many access requests to the VPB, the applicant sought copies of correspondence connected i... more
As one of many access requests to the VPB, the applicant sought copies of correspondence connected in some respect with his Police Act complaints against various members of the Vancouver Police Department. VPB found to have complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to search for records.
00-45 Oct 5, 2000 Inquiry regarding City of White Rock’s handling of a request Applicants requested lists of suppliers who received payments under $10,000 for fiscal years ending ... more
Applicants requested lists of suppliers who received payments under $10,000 for fiscal years ending 1996, 1997, 1998. City provided 1998 list first and 1996 and 1997 lists later; City found to have complied with duty under s. 6(1) to respond accurately and completely to the request.
00-44 Oct 5, 2000 Inquiry regarding Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security records Applicant sought access to Ministry records about him. Applicant not entitled to see some of the thi... more
Applicant sought access to Ministry records about him. Applicant not entitled to see some of the third party personal information withheld from the record in issue. Third party personal information consisted of employment history of third party. Disclosure would be unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy.
00-43 Sep 25, 2000 Inquiry regarding Child, Family and Community Service Act Director found to have duty under Child, Family and Community Service Act to exercise such diligence... more
Director found to have duty under Child, Family and Community Service Act to exercise such diligence in responding to an access request that it is not reasonable to believe records were omitted in a response to a request. The commissioner has jurisdiction to decide if duty met. Director found to have exercised such diligence that it is reasonable to conclude records were not omitted.
00-42 Sep 25, 2000 Inquiry regarding ICBC personal injury claims records Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resu... more
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC’s responses to applicant, in terms of its reasons for refusal to disclose and descriptions of records, were adequate for the purposes of ss. 6(1) and 8(1), though more detail was desirable. ICBC’s delay in responding was contrary to the Act in relation to one request. After close of inquiry, ICBC abandoned reliance on s. 14 and s. 17 for almost all records. ICBC would not have succeeded in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for released records. ICBC is required in each case, however, to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
00-41 Sep 13, 2000 Inquiry regarding BC Transit records Applicant sought access to a copy of the contract(s) from BC Transit, Thompson-Nicola Regional Distr... more
Applicant sought access to a copy of the contract(s) from BC Transit, Thompson-Nicola Regional District and Wells Grey Community Resources Society for provision of a transit program. Section 17(1) did not apply to information in the disputed records. Section 21(1) did not apply to the variable distance costs and monthly payment information but did apply to the fixed monthly costs and the variable hourly costs.
00-40 Aug 14, 2000 Inquiry regarding Southeast Kootenay School Board records Applicant sought access to school counsellor’s notes of interviews with applicant’s children. School... more
Applicant sought access to school counsellor’s notes of interviews with applicant’s children. School board required to refuse disclosure of student’s personal information under s. 22(1) and authorized to refuse to disclose same information on the basis of s. 19 (1).
00-39 Aug 11, 2000 Inquiry regarding Greater Vancouver Regional District records Applicant union requested compilations of unionized workers’ wages and benefits, prepared by the GVR... more
Applicant union requested compilations of unionized workers’ wages and benefits, prepared by the GVRD from public sources. Applicant also sought salary and benefits of non-unionized workers, compiled by the public body from information provided by other municipalities and by private businesses. Public body did not provide evidence of reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests or those of any third party under s. 17. Nor did the evidence support a finding of harm to the commercial interests of third parties under s. 21. Information ordered to be disclosed.
00-38 Aug 11, 2000 Inquiry regarding a Workers’ Compensation Board record Applicant union sought printed copy of WCB’s electronic annotation of its collective agreement. WCB ... more
Applicant union sought printed copy of WCB’s electronic annotation of its collective agreement. WCB not justified in withholding entire record, but annotations could be withheld as advice or recommendations under s. 13(1). WCB’s s. 14 case not adequately supported by evidence showing its application to any given part of the record. Sections 21 and 22 not shown to apply to information in record.
00-37 Aug 11, 2000 Inquiry regarding Simon Fraser University Insurance policies SFU authorized to deny access to most of two insurance policies issued to SFU by an insurer partly o... more
SFU authorized to deny access to most of two insurance policies issued to SFU by an insurer partly owned by SFU. Wording of most of the policies was proprietary to the insurer. Disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm SFU as contemplated by s. 17(1), through increased premiums for insurance. Disclosure also could reasonably be expected to harm significantly the insurer’s competitive position as contemplated by s. 21(1). Some information – such as premium amounts, policy periods and limits – could not be withheld under either section.
00-36 Aug 11, 2000 Inquiry regarding a Capital Health Region research protocol Applicant sought copy of research protocol for publicly-funded study of possible human health effect... more
Applicant sought copy of research protocol for publicly-funded study of possible human health effects of aerial spraying for European gypsy moth. Certain research information of post-secondary educational body employees found to be excluded from Act by s. 3(1)(e). Because public body failed to establish reasonable expectation that disclosure would deprive a researcher of priority of publication, it was not entitled to withhold other information under s. 17(2).
00-35 Aug 4, 2000 Inquiry regarding the Vancouver Police Department’s search for records Public body complied with its duty to applicant under s. 6(1) in its search for requested record.
00-34 Aug 4, 2000 Inquiry Regarding British Columbia Racing Commission’s search for Gaming Policy records Applicant sought gaming policy records from the British Columbia Racing Commission and two other pub... more
Applicant sought gaming policy records from the British Columbia Racing Commission and two other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession, though it did not produce them. Public body found not to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty initially, but further search not ordered, as public body subsequently fulfilled its s. 6(1) search obligation.
00-33 Aug 4, 2000 Inquiry regarding British Columbia Lottery Corporation’s search for Gaming Policy records Applicant sought gaming policy records from this British Columbia Lottery Corporation and other publ... more
Applicant sought gaming policy records from this British Columbia Lottery Corporation and other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession, though it did not produce them. Public body found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty.
00-32 Aug 4, 2000 Inquiry regarding Ministry of Employment and Investment’s Search for Gaming Policy Records Applicant sought gaming policy records from the Ministry of Employment and Investment and two other ... more
Applicant sought gaming policy records from the Ministry of Employment and Investment and two other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession. Public body found to not have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty, initially or during review and inquiry processes. Public body ordered to conduct further search for records.
00-31 Aug 2, 2000 Inquiry regarding British Columbia Institute of Technology Applicant requested her personal information from BCIT, which failed to respond to her access reques... more
Applicant requested her personal information from BCIT, which failed to respond to her access request. BCIT responded, almost a year and a half later, after intervention by this Office. BCIT’s response addressed only part of the applicant’s request. BCIT found not to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay and to respond openly, accurately and completely. BCIT found not to have responded when required by s. 7(1). Reasons given for response were inadequate. BCIT ordered to conduct further searches and to respond to applicant’s request completely and accurately. Conditions imposed respecting timing of further search and of response to applicant. Having failed to make submissions in inquiry, BCIT found not to be authorized by ss. 13, 15 or 17 to refuse to disclose information in the one disputed record. Minimal third party personal information in record appropriately severed under s. 22(1).
00-30 Aug 2, 2000 Inquiry regarding the Vancouver Police Department's search for records Public body complied with its duty to applicant under s. 6(1) in its search for a specific individua... more
Public body complied with its duty to applicant under s. 6(1) in its search for a specific individual’s “job description”. Public body found, but did not provide applicant with, a “classification questionnaire”, a record with a different name that set out the functions and duties of the person’s position as it was in 1995.
00-29 Jul 31, 2000 Inquiry regarding the Members' Conflict of Interest Commissioner Applicant sought access to information from the commissioner under the Members’ Conflict of Interest... more
Applicant sought access to information from the commissioner under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, who declined to respond on the basis that he was not a public body under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Although an “officer of the Legislative Assembly” under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, the conflict commissioner is designated as a public body under paragraph (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Schedule 1 definition of “public body”. He is not excluded by reference to “the office of a person who is a member or officer of the Legislative Assembly” in paragraph (d) of that definition. Conflict commissioner ordered to respond to applicant’s access request.
00-28 Jul 28, 2000 Inquiry regarding Vancouver Community Mental Health Services records Public body entitled under s. 19(1)(a) to withhold information from applicant’s mental health record... more
Public body entitled under s. 19(1)(a) to withhold information from applicant’s mental health records. Disclosure of the severed information would identify the individual or individuals who contacted the public body with concerns about the applicant’s mental health. Evidence established a reasonable expectation that disclosure could threaten the mental or physical health or safety of the individual or individuals
00-27 Jul 28, 2000 Inquiry regarding Ministry of Attorney General records Applicant sought public body’s draft memorandum to Crown counsel setting out Criminal Justice Branch... more
Applicant sought public body’s draft memorandum to Crown counsel setting out Criminal Justice Branch policy on the laying of a specific kind of criminal charge. Only some information could properly be withheld as advice or recommendations or information used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but all information in record was protected by solicitor client privilege. Public interest override not triggered.
00-26 Jul 24, 2000 Inquiry regarding City of Surrey's search for records Public body disclosed records in response to applicant’s request for records relating to a land deve... more
Public body disclosed records in response to applicant’s request for records relating to a land development. Public body found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties for most of request, but not regarding one class of records.
00-25 Jul 21, 2000 Inquiry regarding Township of Langley records Applicant sought copies of legal invoices and correspondence between Township employee and Township ... more
Applicant sought copies of legal invoices and correspondence between Township employee and Township regarding Township’s payment of employee’s legal fees and requests for payment of such fees. Requested information subject to solicitor client privilege, which had not been waived by client employee. Personal information appropriately withheld from two records.
00-24 Jul 17, 2000 Inquiry regarding Ministry of Employment and Investment loan documents Journalist requested access to records disclosing interest rate payable on, and term of, government ... more
Journalist requested access to records disclosing interest rate payable on, and term of, government loan to third party private business. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1). Feared impact on possible future negotiations with other borrowers did not create reasonable expectation of harm to government’s financial or economic interests. Ministry not required to withhold information under s. 21(1). Interest rate and loan term were negotiated terms, not information “supplied” to Ministry by third party business. Evidence also not sufficient to establish reasonable expectation of significant harm to third party or undue financial loss or gain. Disclosure would not result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Ministry.
00-23 Jul 14, 2000 Inquiry regarding Port Moody Police Department records Applicant requested names of public body staff who allegedly made commitments or promises about paym... more
Applicant requested names of public body staff who allegedly made commitments or promises about payment of funeral expenses for a deceased public body employee. Applicant also sought copy of a legal opinion given regarding payment of funeral expenses. Public body authorized to withhold legal opinion under s. 14. Public body authorized to withhold only some information under s. 14, but not required to withhold identities and positions of public body’s staff under s. 22.
00-22 Jul 11, 2000 Inquiry regarding Attorney General health services contracts Applicant trade union sought access to contracts between public body and two health care service pro... more
Applicant trade union sought access to contracts between public body and two health care service providers. Public body withheld global contract amounts, hourly rates and other breakdowns of global contract amounts. Disputed information had been negotiated and not “supplied” within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b). Public body not required to refuse access and also not required to withhold information where a previous contractor was no longer in business. Section 21(1) not available to protect new company that employs a principal and shareholder of previous contractor.
00-21 Jul 4, 2000 Inquiry regarding Labour Relations Board records Applicant requested Board records relating to a previous labour relations matter in which she was in... more
Applicant requested Board records relating to a previous labour relations matter in which she was involved. Board properly withheld some records because they were personal notes, communications or draft decisions of persons acting in a quasi judicial capacity as contemplated by s. 3(1)(b). Board’s search efforts fulfilled its s. 6(1) obligation.
00-20 Jun 30, 2000 Inquiry regarding British Columbia Securities Commission fee estimate Request for review of calculation of fee estimate partly upheld. Permissible for the public body to ... more
Request for review of calculation of fee estimate partly upheld. Permissible for the public body to combine the time for location and retrieval of closely-related records for the purpose of calculating the "free" time entitlement under s. 75(2)(a) of the Act. The public body did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the size of its fee estimate under s. 75(1), however. Fee reduced under s. 58(3).
00-19 Jun 30, 2000 Inquiry regarding British Columbia Securities Commission records Allegation that public body failed to assist applicant not established. Evidence did not establish d... more
Allegation that public body failed to assist applicant not established. Evidence did not establish disappearance or suppression of requested records. Public body adopted a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the applicant's requests and was justified in applying s. 14 to notes of telephone advice from its lawyer and s. 22 to names of confidential referees. It was permissible for the public body to combine three requests for closely related material for the purpose of calculating 'free' location and retrieval time under s. 75(2)(a) of the Act.
00-18 Jun 30, 2000 Inquiry regarding a driving licencing record Applicant requested copy of an unsolicited letter to the Ministry about applicant's possible health ... more
Applicant requested copy of an unsolicited letter to the Ministry about applicant's possible health problem that could affect her driving ability. Ministry released letter to applicant, but severed personal information that would reveal identity of the letter's author. Ministry entitled to withhold letter writer's identity under s. 15(1)(d) and required to withhold that personal information under s. 22(1), but not entitled to withhold it under s. 19(1)(b).
00-17 Jun 20, 2000 Inquiry regarding BC Transit records Applicant sought copies of his personnel file, including records of BC Transit's response to the har... more
Applicant sought copies of his personnel file, including records of BC Transit's response to the harassment complaints he filed. BC Transit severed information under sections 13 and 22 of the Act. In addition, it withheld 165 pages under Section 14 of the Act. Applicant entitled to 4 pages of information formerly severed under Section 13 and 22. BC Transit appropriately applied sections 13, 22 and 14 to the other records.
00-16 Jun 9, 2000 Inquiry regarding Labour Relations Board records Applicant requested records relating to alleged change in panel of Board vice-chairs charged with he... more
Applicant requested records relating to alleged change in panel of Board vice-chairs charged with hearing an application involving applicant's client. Searches by Board were adequate for purposes of s. 6(1). Responsive records in chair and vice chair case files connected with case were excluded under s. 3(1)(b) as they were personal notes, communications or draft decisions of persons acting in a quasi judicial capacity. Certain administrative records not excluded by s. 3(1)(b). No basis for invoking public interest override in s. 25(1) of the Act.
00-15 Jun 8, 2000 Inquiry regarding College of Dental Surgeons records Applicant sought copies of all records relating to her dental treatment, including treatment charts,... more
Applicant sought copies of all records relating to her dental treatment, including treatment charts, by various dentists and at a clinic. College disclosed 27 records and severed one record under s. 22 of the Act. Applicant considered College's response incomplete, saying it failed to provide all records responsive to her request. Applicant sent follow-up letter to College, to which College replied, clarifying its initial response. College found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties.
00-14 May 31, 2000 Inquiry regarding Vancouver Police Board in camera meeting minutes Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Board meetings for first half of 1999. Board withhel... more
Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Board meetings for first half of 1999. Board withheld entirety of responsive records under s. 12(3)(b). Board entitled to withhold only substance of deliberations. Board not entitled to withhold portions disclosing: meeting dates, times and locations, Board members and others in attendance, or subject matter of meetings. Other exceptions to right of access may apply to information disclosing subject matter, or other information in records, in appropriate cases. No evidence presented by Board to justify withholding information regarding subject matter here, but personal information must be withheld where protected by s. 22(1). Section 25 did not require disclosure of information in public interest in this case. Board ordered under s. 58(2)(b) to reconsider its exercise of discretion under s. 12(3)(b).
00-13 May 23, 2000 Inquiry regarding West Vancouver Policy Department Applicant not entitled to third party personal information relating to disciplinary investigation of... more
Applicant not entitled to third party personal information relating to disciplinary investigation of police officer. Applicant entitled to personal information revealing identity of Chief Constable administering part of process and police officer presiding over process. Applicant entitled to information disclosing identity of police force involved, date and other general information.
00-12 May 12, 2000 Inquiry regarding Islands Trust Records Applicant sought access to communications between public body and its lawyers regarding land use byl... more
Applicant sought access to communications between public body and its lawyers regarding land use bylaws for Galiano Island. Public body refused access under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). Applicant argued that solicitor client privilege did not apply, since lawyers were acting outside normal lawyer role, and that public interest favoured disclosure. Solicitor client privilege held to apply. Fact that lawyers were dealing with planning matters as part of their legal work did not affect this conclusion. Public interest did not require disclosure despite s. 14.
00-11 May 10, 2000 Inquiry regarding the College of Physicians and Surgeons' decision not to disclose complaint records Applicant sought information about her complaint to College regarding medical care given to her dece... more
Applicant sought information about her complaint to College regarding medical care given to her deceased sister by the third party physician. College entitled to withhold in camera meeting minutes under s. 12(3)(b). College not authorized by s. 12(3)(b) to withhold background staff memo or part of a College letter to the third party physician. Disclosure of that material would not reveal the substance of in camera deliberations of the meetings. College also not authorized by s. 15(1)(a) to refuse to disclose information on the basis it would harm a law enforcement matter. College required by s. 22(1) to withhold some personal information of the third party physician.
00-10 Apr 19, 2000 Inquiry regarding Liquor Distribution Branch data on annual beer sales Applicant brewer sought 1994 through 1999 aggregate sales data for each of two competitor brewers. T... more
Applicant brewer sought 1994 through 1999 aggregate sales data for each of two competitor brewers. Those sales data were generated by the public body but are deemed by the Liquor Distribution Act to be information supplied in confidence by the third party brewers. Information is financial or commercial information of those third parties. Reasonable expectation of significant harm to competitive positions was shown; public body was required by s. 21(1)(c)(i) to refuse to disclose information under s. 21(1). Disclosure also could reasonably be expected to result in undue financial gain or loss, so public body also was required by s. 21(1)(c)(iii) to withhold the information. Information was not gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax, so public body not required to withhold on that basis.
00-09 Mar 31, 2000 Inquiry regarding Delta Fraser Properties partnership The BC Liberal Caucus, Vancouver Television and The Leader newspaper made requests for records relat... more
The BC Liberal Caucus, Vancouver Television and The Leader newspaper made requests for records relating to an agreement between the Province and Delta Fraser Properties about Burns Bog. Ministries decided that information in the responsive records could be released without harming Delta Fraser’s interests under s. 21. Delta Fraser sought review. Ministries’ decision correct. Ministries to continue processing requests.
00-08 Mar 30, 2000 Inquiry regarding records of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Applicant had complained to College about a physician’s conduct. After College decided not to instit... more
Applicant had complained to College about a physician’s conduct. After College decided not to institute discipline proceedings, applicant sought records of third party expert opinions obtained by College in deciding how to proceed. College not authorized to withhold information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), 15(1)(a) or (c). College not authorized to withhold most information under s. 14. Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine whether privilege has been waived. If s. 14 did apply, no waiver of privilege by College. No other kind of privilege applied to records. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act overrides Medical Practitioners Act. Personal information of third party experts required to be withheld under s. 22(1).
00-07 Mar 16, 2000 Inquiry regarding Ministry of Attorney General records Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Mini... more
Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.
00-06 Mar 16, 2000 Inquiry regarding Simon Fraser University's solicitor client privilege claim SFU withheld records under s. 14, claiming solicitor client privilege. Applicant argued SFU had not ... more
SFU withheld records under s. 14, claiming solicitor client privilege. Applicant argued SFU had not established grounds for privilege claim. Grounds for privilege established by SFU for most, but not all, withheld records. SFU held not to be authorized to withhold all records. Communications not privileged simply because records in SFU’s custody had been copied to a lawyer. Third party personal information in records ordered severed and withheld from applicant.
00-05 Feb 24, 2000 Inquiry regarding records of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner Respondent public body had no responsive records in its custody or under its control. Police Complai... more
Respondent public body had no responsive records in its custody or under its control. Police Complaint Commissioner under Part 9 of Police Act is an officer of the Legislature for purposes of the Act. Applicant provided with all records in custody or under control of B.C. Police Commission.
00-04 Feb 2, 2000 Inquiry regarding the University of British Columbia's search for records Applicant complained to UBC about his treatment by UBC staff. He later sought copies of all records ... more
Applicant complained to UBC about his treatment by UBC staff. He later sought copies of all records relating to investigation of his complaint. UBC disclosed 45 pages of records without any severing. Applicant alleged UBC failed to provide records responsive to his request. UBC found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties.
00-03 Jan 28, 2000 Inquiry regarding Ministry of Children & Families family services records Applicant sought records relating to his family’s involvement with the Ministry and its predecessor ... more
Applicant sought records relating to his family’s involvement with the Ministry and its predecessor agency. Applicant also sought Ministry records relating to complaints lodged by applicant about his daughter. Ministry disclosed some records (including applicant’s personal information) and withheld third party personal information. Ministry required under both CFCSA and Act to refuse to disclose information. Ministry entitled to consider relevant circumstance of hostile relations between applicant and daughter. Applicant’s assertion of need for information for legal proceedings insufficient to favour disclosure.
00-02 Jan 28, 2000 Inquiry regarding personal information in Ministry of Attorney General records Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant... more
Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant had pleaded guilty to having harassed criminally, under the Criminal Code, in 1995. Ministry’s refusal to disclose parts of the records authorized by ss.15(1)(g) and 19(1)(a). Ministry required to refuse to disclose personal information under s. 22(1). Not necessary to deal with Ministry’s reliance on s. 16.
00-01 Jan 26, 2000 Inquiry Regarding Langley Township Bylaw Enforcement Records Applicant homeowner sought bylaw enforcement records about her property. Langley refused under ss. 1... more
Applicant homeowner sought bylaw enforcement records about her property. Langley refused under ss. 15 and 19 and withheld some records entirely and severed others. Langley authorized to withhold law enforcement information and information that if disclosed could threaten the health or safety of others. Langley required to withhold third party personal information.
No. 332-1999 Dec 22, 1999 Inquiry regarding a Ministry of Children and Families fee waiver decision Applicant B.C. Liberal Caucus requested a copy of Ministry’s 1998 legislative session ministerial b... more
Applicant B.C. Liberal Caucus requested a copy of Ministry’s 1998 legislative session ministerial briefing book. Ministry gave fee estimate and subsequently refused applicant’s request for fee waiver. Ministry argued information in record did not adequately relate to matters of public interest. Applicant argued some aspects of record related to public interest matters of recent public debate. Applicant’s status only one factor relevant to whether information would be disseminated to public. Ministry’s decision upheld.
No. 331-1999 Dec 21, 1999 Inquiry regarding Vancouver Police Board's refusal to disclose complaint-related records VPB refused on several grounds to release records relating to complaints by applicant against poli... more
VPB refused on several grounds to release records relating to complaints by applicant against police. Act held to apply to records relating to Police Act proceedings. No evidence that in camera VPB meeting was involved in relation to some records; records did not reveal substance of deliberations in any case. No evidence information received from B.C. government was received in confidence. Solicitor client privilege held to apply to communications between VPB and its lawyer. Solicitor client privilege held not to apply to report from lawyer retained as investigator under Police Act. Solicitor client privilege held not to apply to correspondence between VPB’s lawyer and other lawyers. Identity of police officer about whom applicant had complained ordered disclosed to applicant.
No. 330-1999 Nov 30, 1999 Inquiry regarding e-mail messages in the custody of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations Ministry refused to disclose e-mails sent by a third party to others, saying their disclosure woul... more
Ministry refused to disclose e-mails sent by a third party to others, saying their disclosure would unreasonably invade third parties’ privacy. E-mails contained statements about the applicant and considerable amounts of fact. E-mails also contained names and innocuous contact particulars of third parties. Ministry found not to be required by s. 22(1) of the Act to refuse to disclose the disputed records. Records contain no personal views or opinions of e-mails’ author (including about the applicant). Rest of personal information in records found to be minimal. No unreasonable invasion of anyone’s personal privacy from disclosure of personal information in the e-mails. Applicant entitled to have access to all of the e-mails.
No. 329-1999 Nov 30, 1999 Inquiry regarding Ministry of Attorney General records Applicant sought legal costs associated with government complaint to British Columbia Press Council... more
Applicant sought legal costs associated with government complaint to British Columbia Press Council. Ministry refused to disclose information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). Ministry authorized to withhold information.
No. 328-1999 Nov 19, 1999 Inquiry regarding Ministry of Attorney General records Applicant sought legal costs associated with gaming-related legal issues. Ministry refused to disc... more
Applicant sought legal costs associated with gaming-related legal issues. Ministry refused to disclose information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). Ministry noted litigation was still underway. Ministry authorized to withhold information. Applicants have practical incentives to cooperate with, and assist, public bodies by making specific and clear requests wherever reasonably possible.
No. 326B-1999 Nov 19, 1999 Inquiry regarding a City of Cranbrook fire-fighting report (Final Order) No summary available.
No. 327-1999 Nov 4, 1999 Inquiry regarding access to University of British Columbia records Applicant made a series of requests for access to his personal information. UBC disclosed large a... more
Applicant made a series of requests for access to his personal information. UBC disclosed large amounts of information, but withheld some third party personal information, information subject to solicitor client privilege, and advice or recommendations. UBC was authorized to withhold privileged information and some advice or recommendations. UBC was required to withhold third party personal information that would identify individuals who gave confidential evaluations of the applicant, but UBC ordered to comply with s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with summaries of those evaluations. UBC was found to have fulfilled its duty to assist the applicant. No evidence of bias on the part of UBC employees handling the applicant’s access requests at the same time as appeal processes involving the applicant.
No. 326-1999 Oct 29, 1999 Inquiry regarding a City of Cranbrook fire-fighting report City commissioned a consultant’s report on City’s fire-fighting services. City held not to be auth... more
City commissioned a consultant’s report on City’s fire-fighting services. City held not to be authorized to withhold entire report under s. 13(1). City ordered to perform severing required by s. 4(2) and return severed record for commissioner’s review. City held not to be authorized to withhold information under s. 12(3)(b), since report was only the subject-matter of in camera City council meetings. Since report did not constitute a plan or proposal, City also not authorized to withhold it under s. 17(1). City also did not establish reasonable expectation of harm for the purposes of s. 17(1).
No. 325-1999 Oct 12, 1999 Inquiry regarding Workers' Compensation Board interest payment records WCB withheld records dealing with WCB policy on payment of interest to employers when refunding to ... more
WCB withheld records dealing with WCB policy on payment of interest to employers when refunding to employers certain contribution overpayments. WCB withheld information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 17(1). WCB authorized to withhold record under first two sections, but not s. 17(1). No reasonable expectation of harm to WCB’s financial or economic interests on basis information might be used by third parties in litigation against WCB. Section 13(1) in any case found to protect information to which WCB applied s. 17(1).
No. 324-1999 Oct 12, 1999 Inquiry regarding records of the University of British Columbia UBC refused to disclose to applicant internal UBC correspondence and communications. UBC authorize... more
UBC refused to disclose to applicant internal UBC correspondence and communications. UBC authorized to refuse to disclose portions of records under s. 13. UBC not authorized to withhold information under s. 17. Legislation recognizes no independent ‘zone of confidentiality’; express provisions of Act must be relied on as appropriate in circumstances of each case. UBC authorized to withhold privileged communications under s. 14. Some personal financial information ordered severed and withheld.
No. 323-1999 Aug 26, 1999 Inquiry regarding Vancouver General Hospital and Health Science's Centre's refusal to disclose abortion services information The applicant submitted an access request to the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre for ... more
The applicant submitted an access request to the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre for records showing the number of abortions performed at the hospital for the calendar years 1997 and 1998. Access was denied under s. 19(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. No evidence to support reasonable expectation of threat under s. 19(1). Refusal not authorized.
No. 322-1999 Jul 30, 1999 Inquiry Re: Legal Services Society’s refusal to release the names and amounts paid to the top five “billers” for 1998 for immigration matters and criminal cases No summary available.
No. 321-1999 Jul 30, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General to refuse to disclose records to an applicant concerning his Internet domain and his business No summary available.
No. 320-1999 Jul 29, 1999 Inquiry Re: A request for access to a letter of agreement between a school district and a marketing company No summary available.
No. 319-1999 Jul 29, 1999 Inquiry Re: A request by Northwood Inc. for comparative check scale information from the Ministry of Forests No summary available.
No. 318-1999 Jul 27, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to charge a fee and its refusal to waive that fee No summary available.
No. 317-1999 Jul 26, 1999 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request to the City of Richmond for annotation of certain records held by the City No summary available.
No. 316-1999 Jul 22, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record No summary available.
No. 315-1999 Jul 21, 1999 Inquiry Re: The British Columbia Lottery Corporation’s withholding of its contracts with Leslie Nielsen, an actor No summary available.
No. 314-1999 Jul 20, 1999 Inquiry Re: A third party's refusal for the Real Estate Council to disclose his response to a complaint No summary available
No. 313-1999 Jun 30, 1999 Inquiry Re: A request for briefing notes about the Nisga'a Final Agreement in the custody of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs No summary allowed
No. 312-1999 Jun 22, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to deny the Insurance Bureau of Canada access to rate class information No summary available
No. 311-1999 Jun 18, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to disclose reports listed on its Contaminated Site Registry that pertain to a decommissioned Petro Canada service station No summary available
No. 310-1999 Jun 7, 1999 A decision by the District of Campbell River and the North Island 9-1-1 Corporation to refuse access to parts of a contract No summary available
No. 309-1999 May 13, 1999 A request for briefing notes about the Nisga'a Final Agreement in the custody of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs No summary available
No. 308-1999 May 7, 1999 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the Liquor Distribution Branch of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture to disclose records to a customer No summary available
No. 307-1999 Apr 29, 1999 Inquiry Re: Refusal by the Ministry for Children and Families to provide an applicant with her father’s birth certificate No summary available.
No. 306-1999 Apr 23, 1999 Inquiry Re: Decisions by the Public Service Employee Relations Commission of the Office of the Minister Responsible for the Public Service to refuse access to records related to a former Ministry of Health employee No summary available.
No. 305-1999 Apr 22, 1999 Inquiry Re: Media request to the West Vancouver Police Department for the name of an accident victim No summary available.
No. 304-1999 Apr 16, 1999 Inquiry Re: A request for briefing notes about the Nisga’a Final Agreement in the custody of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks No summary available.
No. 303-1999 Apr 15, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by the City of Cranbrook to refuse access to employment contracts No summary available.
No. 302-1999 Apr 13, 1999 Inquiry Re: A request by a teachers’ union for access to complaint letters about a teacher No summary available.
No. 301-1999 Mar 11, 1999 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request to the Ministry for Children and Families for a deleted e-mail message and the Ministry’s duty to search back-up tapes No summary available.
No. 300-1999 Mar 10, 1999 Inquiry Re: A non-custodial parent’s request for access to records of his children held by the Ministry for Children and Families No summary available.
No. 299-1999 Mar 4, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by BC Transit to refuse to grant a waiver of fees No summary available.
No. 298-1999 Mar 4, 1999 Inquiry Re: BC Transit’s refusal to grant access to the Sea Bus Engineering Log Books for 1993 and 1994, and its further refusal to grant a fee waiver for copying those Log Books No summary available.
No. 297-1999 Mar 3, 1999 Inquiry Re: Request for records in the custody of the Ministry of Forests that had been sent to the Ombudsman No summary available
No. 296-1999 Feb 26, 1999 Inquiry Re: Request for an applicant’s medical records in the custody of Royal Columbian Hospital No summary available.
No. 309-1999 Feb 18, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors to refuse to disclose the names and addresses of 500 people contacted by the Ministry’s Continuing Care Division No summary available.
No. 294-1999 Feb 17, 1999 Inquiry Re: A review of the decision by the City of Vancouver to withhold records subject to solicitor-client privilege, and a review of the adequacy of the City’s search for records responsive to the applicant’s request No summary available.
No. 293-1999 Feb 15, 1999 Inquiry Re: The Sierra Legal Defence Fund’s request for a review of a Ministry of Forests fee estimate and subsequent refusal to waive the fee No summary available.
No. 292-1999 Feb 15, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to withhold records from an applicant and the duty of ICBC to respond to the applicant accurately and without delay No summary available.
No. 291-1999 Feb 11, 1999 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Law Society of British Columbia to refuse the applicant’s request for access to correspondence between certain members of the Law Society and the Insurance Department of the Law Society No summary available.
No. 290-1999 Feb 11, 1999 Inquiry Re: The application of section 3(1)(h) by the Vancouver Police Department No summary available.
No. 289-1999 Jan 12, 1999 Inquiry Re: Request for a record relating to superferry construction in the custody or under the control of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation No summary available.
No. 288-1999 Jan 12, 1999 Inquiry Re: Requests for a record relating to superferry construction in the custody or under the control of the Job Protection Commission and the British Columbia Ferry Corporation No summary available.
No. 287-1998 Dec 23, 1998 Inqury Re: A decision of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia to refuse access to information No summary available.
No. 286-1998 Dec 22, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by School District No. 73 (Kamloops/Thompson) to withhold information relating to harassment complaints against the applicant No summary available.
No. 285-1998 Dec 21, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by British Columbia Lottery Corporation to withhold records concerning Lake City Casinos Ltd. from the Kamloops Daily News No summary available.
No. 283-1998 Dec 11, 1998 Inquiry Re: A Decision by the District of West Vancouver to refuse access to information related to the Upper Level Lands Steering Committee No summary available.
No. 282-1998 Dec 10, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request for correspondence directed to the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors, pertaining to the water quality in the Erikson Improvement District No summary available.
No. 281-1998 Dec 7, 1998 Inqury Re: A decision by the Regional District of Nanaimo to sever information from the draft Official Community Plan for Nanoose Bay No summary available.
No. 280-1998 Dec 3, 1998 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request for review of a decision of the University of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 279-1998 Dec 2, 1998 Inquiry Re: A fee estimate by the City of Kelowna No summary available.
No. 278-1998 Nov 30, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request for correction of records in the custody of the College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 277-1998 Nov 26, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General of British Columbia to refuse access to information No summary available.
No. 276-1998 Nov 25, 1998 Inquiry Re: A Refusal by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. to disclose the names of application committee members No summary available.
No. 275-1998 Nov 25, 1998 No. 275-1998 No summary available.
No. 274-1998 Nov 24, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General regarding a request for records from the City of Surrey No summary available.
No. 273-1998 Nov 20, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request for records relating to an application for early parole eligibility under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code No summary available.
No. 273-1998 Nov 20, 1998 The obligation of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation to assist an applicant under section 6 of the Act. No summary available
No. 272-1998 Nov 19, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request for access to personal information in a complaint record held by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. No summary available.
No. 271-1998 Nov 13, 1998 Inquiry Re: A third party’s request for a review of a decision by the Simon Fraser Health Region to disclose the contents of the third party’s interview given during a Community Care Facilities Licensing investigation No summary available.
No. 270-1998 Nov 12, 1998 Inquiry Re: An applicant's request for review of a decision of the University of British Columbia to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record No summary available.
No. 269-1998 Nov 12, 1998 A decision by the University of British Columbia to refuse access to a third party’s personal information. No summary available
No. 268-1998 Nov 12, 1998 A request for third-party personal information in a Vancouver Police Department report. No summary available
No. 267-1998 Oct 22, 1998 Inquiry Re: Disclosure of divisional planning records by the University of Victoria. No summary available
No. 265-1998 Oct 2, 1998 Inquiry Re: The withholding of an applicant's medical and psychiatric records by the Dawson Creek & District Hospital No summary available
No. 264-1998 Sep 25, 1998 A request to Simon Fraser University for access to the “Campus Crime Survey” database No summary available
No. 263-1998 Sep 11, 1998 Inquiry Re: Access to a letter of complaint sent to the City of Coquitlam No summary available
No. 262-1998 Sep 10, 1998 Inquiry Re: A review of a decision by the City of Abbotsford to disclose to Mediacom Inc. an agreement with Pattison Outdoor (formerly Seaboard Advertising Company) No summary available
No. 261-1998 Sep 9, 1998 Inquiry Re: A media request for access to records regarding the administration of the medication Ritalin by school district staff to elementary school students: School District No. 35 (Langley) ... No summary available
No. 260-1998 Sep 3, 1998 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request for records concerning his complaints and claims made to the Law Society of British Columbia No summary available
No. 259-1998 Aug 31, 1998 Inquiry Re: The Corporation of Delta’s refusal to grant a fee waiver No summary available.
No. 258-1998 Aug 31, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request for employment-related records in the custody or under the control of the Vancouver Police Department No summary available.
No. 257-1998 Aug 14, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search for records by the Ministry for Children and Families. No summary available.
No. 256-1998 Aug 13, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request by the British Columbia College of Teachers for a statement in the custody or under the control of the Vancouver Police Department No summary available.
No. 255-1998 Aug 12, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search for records conducted by the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 254-1998 Aug 10, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society to refuse access to information. No summary available.
No. 253-1998 Aug 7, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Abbotsford Police Department to sever third party personal information from records of a complaint filed about the applicant. No summary available.
No. 252-1998 Aug 4, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Law Society of British Columbia to refuse access to a legal opinion No summary available.
No. 251-1998 Jul 31, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to sever information from records dealing with the Whistler Land Corporation and the disposal or sale of Crown Lands No summary available.
No. 249-1998 Jul 20, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search for records by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), and whether ICBC was required to create a record in response to an applicant’s request No summary available.
No. 248-1998 Jul 14, 1998 INQUIRY RE: A decision by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations to refuse access to records regarding the forfeiture of rural properties for tax arrears No summary available.
No. 247-1998 Jul 13, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision of School District No. 58 (Nicola-Similkameen) on the custody or control of a retired school principal’s diary No summary available.
No. 246-1998 Jul 9, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to refuse to disclose environmental consulting reports concerning property owned by Imperial Oil Ltd., which is adjacent to properties owned by the applicant No summary available.
No. 245-1998 Jul 7, 1998 Inquiry Re: The British Columbia Institute of Technology’s failure to assist in response to requests for access to records No summary available.
No. 244-1998 Jul 3, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General to withhold records from an applicant No summary available.
No. 243-1998 Jun 26, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s search for records No summary available.
No. 242-1998 Jun 25, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the search conducted by the New Westminster Police Service in response to a request for records No summary available.
No. 241-1998 Jun 23, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search for records conducted by the Workers’ Compensation Board No summary available.
No. 240-1998 Jun 17, 1998 Inquiry Re: The appropriateness of a fee levied by the BC Assessment Authority No summary available.
No. 239-1998 Jun 3, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search conducted by the Workers' Compensation Board for records requested by an applicant and the decision of the WCB to withhold records from him No summary available
No. 238-1998 May 29, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request by Pacific Western Brewing Company for a record in the custody of the Ministry of Attorney General, Liquor Distribution Branch No summary available
No. 237-1998 May 27, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to sever information from records dealing with the Whistler Land Corporation and the disposal or sale of Crown Lands No summary available.
No. 237-1998 May 27, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Ministry of Health to withhold records from an applicant No summary available
No. 236-1998 May 15, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the search by the City of Prince George for records responsive to a request for records by Babine Investments No summary available
No. 235-1998 May 12, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision of BC Hydro to withhold records from an applicant. No summary available
No. 234-1998 Apr 30, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Health to refuse access to the applicant's surname at birth and the name of the applicant's birth mother No summary available
No. 233-1998 Apr 30, 1998 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the Law Society of British Columbia to disclose complaint records No summary available
No. 232-1998 Apr 28, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request to the Ministry for Children and Families for access to adoption records No summary available
No. 231-1998 Apr 28, 1998 A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to withhold a Draft Report on Moose Management. No summary available
No. 230-1998 Apr 27, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Real Estate Council of British Columbia to withhold records from an applicant. No summary available
No. 229-1998 Apr 26, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search conducted by the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia for records requested by an applicant and its decision to withhold records from an applicant No summary available.
No. 228-1998 Apr 24, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Ministry of Human Resources’ search for records No summary available.
No. 227-1998 Apr 23, 1998 A decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia to withhold records (that may exist) relating to complaints made about a member of the College No summary available.
No. 226-1998 Apr 22, 1998 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia for records about her deceased husband No summary available.
No. 225-1998 Apr 22, 1998 The City of Victoria’s custody or control of records containing financial information relating to a proposed arena/multiplex project No summary available.
No. 224-1998 Apr 20, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request for a record of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission No summary available.
No. 223-1998 Apr 17, 1998 Inquiry Re: A review of the responses by the Ministry for Children and Families to multiple requests from an applicant for access to and correction of records No summary available.
No. 222-1998 Apr 17, 1998 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request for access to a victim impact statement made at his parole hearing No summary available.
No. 221-1998 Apr 16, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia to refuse the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) request for access to records associated with the conduct of a physician No summary available.
No. 220-1998 Mar 31, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to refuse access to records relating to an audit of a Traffic Safety Initiative No summary available
No. 219-1998 Mar 24, 1998 Inquiry Re: A Review of a decision by the Law Society of British Columbia to refuse access to records regarding a complaint against a member; a review of the Law Society's decision to give an applicant access to other records ... No summary available
No. 218-1998 Mar 18, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General to refuse an individual access to some of his Human Resources records No summary available
No. 217-1998 Mar 6, 1998 A decision by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations to withhold the names and addresses of property owners from copies of Certificates of Forfeiture No summary available
No. 216-1998 Feb 27, 1998 An applicant's request for records related to his complaints made to the Law Society of British Columbia No summary available
No. 215-1998 Feb 23, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to sever information from a Draft Discussion Paper requested by Sierra Legal Defence Fund. No sumemary availabl
No. 214-1998 Feb 10, 1998 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the College of Massage Therapists of BC to disclose the mailing list of its members to the Independent Massage Therapists Society No summary available
No. 213-1998 Feb 5, 1998 Inquiry Re: Information about a client's family withheld by the Ministry for Children and Families No summary available
No. 212-1998 Jan 18, 1998 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General to withhold records from Tri-Way Seniors Mobile Home Park No summary available
No. 211-1998 Jan 15, 1998 Inquiry Re: Whether the City of Vancouver properly withheld personal information and whether the City was obligated to create a record in response to an applicant's request. No summary available
No. 210-1998 Jan 14, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request for review of a decision by BC Transit to disclose a record pertaining to a contract with Seaboard Advertising Company No summary available.
No. 209-1998 Jan 8, 1998 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search for records by the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 208-1998 Jan 5, 1998 Inquiry Re: A request for records in the custody or under the control of the Law Society of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 207-1997 Dec 23, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Ministry of Attorney General’s search for records No summary available.
No. 206-1997 Dec 18, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision of BC Hydro to refuse access to the Key Principles Agreement between Island Cogeneration Project Inc. and BC Hydro No summary available.
No. 205-1997 Dec 18, 1997 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request for access to audiotapes of his own appeal to the Public Service Appeal Board No summary available.
No. 204-1997 Dec 15, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the University of Victoria to withhold from an applicant the audio tapes of an harassment hearing at which she was the respondent No summary available.
No. 203-1997 Dec 12, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search for records by the City of Prince George No summary available.
No. 186B-1997 Dec 12, 1997 Inquiry Re: The Public Service Employee Relations Commission's decision to withhold records relating to a classification review of employees of Crown Victim Witness Services (Part 2) No summary available
No. 202-1997 Dec 11, 1997 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request for records to the Saanich Police Department No summary available.
No. 201-1997 Nov 28, 1997 INQUIRY RE: A decision of The Law Society of British Columbia to withhold records pertaining to an applicant's complaint against a lawyer No summary available.
No. 200-1997 Nov 28, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry for Children and Families to deny access to third-party personal information in an adoption file No summary available.
No. 199-1997 Nov 20, 1997 INQUIRY RE: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General, Criminal Justice Branch, to withhold the names of attendees at meetings of the Abortion Services Working Group No summary available.
No. 198-1997 Nov 20, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations’ response to a request for e-mail messages No summary available.
No. 197-1997 Nov 14, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to refuse access to portions of a Wildlife Act investigation file and to correspondence with the Office of the Ombudsman No summary available.
No. 196-1997 Nov 13, 1997 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request for a record from the Victoria Police Department No summary available.
No. 195-1997 Oct 23, 1997 Inquiry Re: A request for records in the custody or under the control of the Ministry of Attorney General, Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit (CLEU) No summary available.
No. 194-1997 Oct 14, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to withhold personal information relating to an investigation No summary available.
No. 193-1997 Oct 7, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General to refuse access to records relating to an investigation of a complaint of sexual harassment against an employee No summary available.
No. 192-1997 Oct 6, 1997 Inquiry Re: The Ministry for Children and Families’ application of section 29 (Correction of Personal Information) of the Act to certain records in its custody and control No summary available.
No. 191-1997 Sep 24, 1997 Inquiry Re: Decisions by the Ministry of Attorney General and the Liquor Distribution Branch to sever records relating to the termination of employment of a former employee No summary available.
No. 190-1997 Sep 15, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search conducted by the then Ministry of Social Services for records requested by the applicants, the adequacy of the Ministry’s explanation for its severing of the records, and the application of section 22 to the recor No summary available.
No. 189-1997 Sep 12, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry for Children and Families to annotate a record under section 89(1) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act rather than to correct it No summary available.
No. 188-1997 Aug 22, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to deny access to Ombudsman records, the WCB’s solicitor-client records, and other records related to a worker’s claim No summary available.
No. 187-1997 Aug 21, 1997 Inquiry Re: A request by Domaine Combret Ltd. to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for access to Treasury Board submissions concerning government assistance to the wine and grape industry No summary available.
No. 185-1997 Aug 18, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the City of Surrey's search for records requested by an applicant No summary available
No. 184-1997 Aug 15, 1997 Inquiry Re: A request by an applicant for records relating to her former employment with the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors No summary available
No. 183-1997 Aug 14, 1997 Inquiry Re: An applicant's request for personal information to the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors No summary available.
No. 182-1997 Aug 13, 1997 Inquiry Re: A review of a decision by the City of Prince George to withhold records from Babine Investments Ltd. No summary available
No. 181-1997 Aug 12, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors to refuse access to information on a birth certificate No summary available
No. 180-1997 Aug 7, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision of B.C. Hydro to disclose records of correspondence with Concerned Citizens of Squamish No summe ary availabl
No.179-1997 Aug 6, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision of The Law Society of British Columbia to withhold records pertaining to an applicant's complaint against several lawyers No summary available
No. 178-1997 Jul 25, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for records requested by an applicant No summary available.
No. 177-1997 Jul 22, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to withhold personnel and other records from an employee No summary available.
No. 175-1997 Jul 21, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General to withhold records relating to an applicant’s previous request for records from the Residential Tenancy Branch No summary available.
No. 174-1997 Jul 14, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Greater Vancouver Regional District to withhold a List of Certificates maintained under section 59(5) of the Municipal Act No summary available.
No. 173-1997 Jul 14, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the District of Campbell River to withhold records relating to a former employee from a media applicant No summary available.
No. 172-1997 Jul 11, 1997 Inquiry Re: A request by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for access to records in the custody of the District of North Vancouver No summary available.
No. 171-1997 Jun 26, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Cariboo Regional District to sever information from records under section 19 of the Act No summary available.
No. 170-1997 Jun 12, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) to withhold records from an applicant and the adequacy of ICBC’s search for records No summary available.
No. 169-1997 Jun 11, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Law Society of British Columbia to refuse access to complaint records No summary available.
No. 168-1997 Jun 6, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture’s search for records requested by an applicant No summary available.
No. 167-1997 Jun 6, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training’s search for records requested by the applicant and its compliance with the duty to assist No summary available.
No. 166-1997 May 29, 1997 Inquiry Re: The Law Society of British Columbia’s decision to disclose information to an applicant No summary available.
No. 165-1997 May 20, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Attorney General to deny access to records relating to amendments to the Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22 pertaining to discriminatory publication No summary available.
No. 164-1997 May 15, 1997 Inquiry Re: The Workers Compensation Board’s decision to withhold personal and other information from an applicant No summary available.
No. 163-1997 May 14, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Law Society of British Columbia to withhold records relating to a complaint from an applicant No summary available.
No. 162-1997 May 9, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the City of Prince George to deny access to records concerning parking rights No summary available.
No. 161-1997 May 1, 1997 Inquiry Re: The Ministry of Attorney General’s decision to sever information from records related to an employee’s travel expenses No summary available.
No. 159-1997 Apr 17, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to sever and withhold from the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia records that relate to proposed or draft “no-fault” automobile insurance in British Columbia No summary available.
No. 158-1997 Apr 10, 1997 A decision of the Workers Compensation Board to withhold disciplinary records pertaining to an applicant No summary available
No. 157-1997 Mar 20, 1997 Inquiry Re: Decisions of the Ministry of Attorney General to deny a request for a reduction of a fee estimate and a request for a fee waiver No summary available
No. 156-1997 Mar 19, 1997 A decision by the City of Surrey to deny a request for a fee waiver based on inability to pay No summary available
No. 155-1997 Mar 18, 1997 A decision of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to deny, in part, a request for a fee waiver from an applicant seeking records related to Clayoquot Sound No summary available
No. 154-1997 Mar 18, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Forests to deny a request for a fee waiver from an applicant seeking records related to Clayoquot Sound No summary available
No. 153-1997 Mar 11, 1997 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists to disclose registration and investigation records No summary available
No. 152-1997 Mar 4, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Ministry of Attorney General to exclude judges' records from disclosure under section 3(1)(a) of the Act No summary available
No. 151-1997 Feb 14, 1997 Inquiry Re: A Refusal by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations to provide access to correspondence with a Vancouver law firm No summary available
No. 150-1997 Feb 13, 1997 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's search for records requested by an applicant No summarye available
No. 149-1997 Jan 31, 1997 Inquiry Re: Decisions of the Ministry of Attorney General regarding an applicant's requests for records from the Liquor Distribution Branch No summary available
No. 148-1997 Jan 30, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training to deny a fee waiver No summary available.
No. 147-1997 Jan 29, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to deny a request for a fee waiver No summary available.
No. 146-1997 Jan 28, 1997 Inquiry Re: A request for a review of a decision by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to refuse a waiver for fees levied in connection with an access request for employment equity records No summary available.
No. 145-1997 Jan 27, 1997 Inquiry Re: Decisions of the Ministry of Social Services regarding an applicant’s request for records relating to sexual abuse investigations No summary available.
No. 144-1997 Jan 17, 1997 Inquiry Re: An applicant and a third party’s request for a review of decisions made by Greater Vancouver Mental Health Services Society with respect to access to a complaint file No summary available.
No. 143-1997 Jan 16, 1997 Inquiry Re: A decision of the British Columbia Gaming Commission to withhold the name and address of a third party from an applicant for access to records No summary available.
No. 142-1997 Jan 15, 1997 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the City of Victoria to disclose records to the media related to the choice of a contractor to replace Memorial Arena No summary available.
No. 141-1996 Dec 20, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Vancouver Police Department to sever and withhold records from an applicant relating to a hiring application, and the adequacy of its search for records No summary available.
No. 140-1996 Dec 19, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters (ABCPF) to withhold records relating to the investigation of complaints about three professional members No summary available.
No. 139-1996 Dec 19, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by School District No. 31 (Merritt) to refuse access to records containing information relating to the evaluation dates and academic specialties of Merritt Secondary School Teachers No summary available.
No. 138-1996 Dec 18, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for review of a decision by the Ministry of Attorney General to refuse a former employee of its Corrections Branch access to records pertaining to an investigation of workplace harassment No summary available
No. 137-1996 Dec 17, 1996 Inquiry Re: In the Matter of certain requests for review between an applicant, the applicant's spouse, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (public body) and In the Matter of a complaint, between the applicant and the Mini No summary available
No. 136-1996 Dec 16, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. to withhold the name of a third party from an applicant No summary available
No. 136-1996 Dec 16, 1996 Inquiry Re: The Ministry of Social Service's application of section 29 of the Act (correction of personal information) No summary available
No. 135-1996 Dec 10, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Motor Vehicle Branch of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to withhold the driving record of a third party from an applicant No summary available
No. 134-1996 Dec 9, 1996 Inquiry Re: Decisions of the Vancouver School Board regarding an applicant's requests for records Noe summary availabl
No. 132-1996 Nov 20, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request to the Ministry of Social Services for access to the full birth name of the applicant's deceased father No summary available
No. 131-1996 Nov 19, 1996 Inquiry Re: An applicant's request for access to records held by the University of British Columbia No summary available
No. 130-1996 Nov 12, 1996 A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to release environmental consulting reports concerning a site owned by Shell Canada Products Ltd. No summary available
No. 129-1996 Nov 8, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Vancouver Police Board to withhold records from an applicant relating to a proceeding under the Police Act No summary available
No. 128-1996 Nov 5, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for records related to successful applicants to the Arbitration Development Program of the Collective Agreement Arbitration Bureau of the Ministry of Labour No summary available.
No. 127-1996 Sep 24, 1996 Inquiry Re: An applicant’s request for a review of various decisions made by the City of Vancouver No summary available.
No. 126-1996 Sep 17, 1996 Inquiry Re: A media request for access to all records concerning an agreement between the University of British Columbia, Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd., and other third parties No summary available.
No. 125-1996 Sep 17, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Vancouver Police Department to withhold law enforcement records from an applicant No summary available.
No. 124-1996 Sep 12, 1996 Inquiry Re: The Workers Compensation Board’s application of section 29 of the Act (correction of personal information) No summary available.
No. 123-1996 Sep 5, 1996 Inquiry Re: A media request for access to a consultant’s report prepared for the District of Sechelt No summary available.
No. 122-1996 Sep 4, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for a review of the response by the British Columbia Assessment Authority to an applicant’s access request No summary available.
No. 120-1996 Aug 30, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for records in the custody, or under the control, of the British Columbia Council of Human Rights No summary available.
No. 119-1996 Aug 29, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for records that the Ministry of Social Services provided to the Ministry of Attorney General for purposes of litigation No summary available.
No. 118-1996 Aug 27, 1996 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for records responsive to an applicant’s request No summary available.
No. 117-1996 Aug 27, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital to refuse an applicant access to her hospital records No summary available.
No. 116-1996 Aug 26, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for review of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C.’s decision to refuse access to records containing information about the accreditation of Everywoman’s Health Centre No summary available.
No. 115-1996 Aug 23, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for access to a school counsellor’s notes No summary available.
No. 114-1996 Aug 22, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the School District No. 31 (Merritt) to withhold correspondence written by third parties and responses to that correspondence No summary available.
No. 113-1996 Aug 19, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Cowichan School Board to withhold records relating to the development of a five-year plan for School District No. 65 (Cowichan) No summary available.
No. 112-1996 Jul 2, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations to refuse an applicant access to the records of an audit of the Public Affairs Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs No summary available.
No. 111-1996 Jun 6, 1996 Inquiry Re: request by an applicant for access to exit survey responses held by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food No summary available.
No. 110-1996 Jun 5, 1996 Inquiry Re: Various decisions of the Vancouver School Board with respect to an applicant’s access requests No summary available.
No. 109-1996 Jun 4, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for records in the custody of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 108A-1996 May 30, 1996 Inquiry Re: Reconsideration of Order No. 108-1996, May 30, 1996 No summary available.
No. 108-1996 May 30, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors to refuse an applicant access to adult forensic psychiatric records No summary available.
No. 107-1996 May 29, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for access to a lawyer's bill paid by the Risk Management Branch of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations No summary available.
No. 106-1996 May 28, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by School District No. 31 (Merritt) to refuse an applicant access to records concerning a workplace incident between the applicant and another teacher No summary available.
No. 105-1996 May 27, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for a list of records concerning the applicant that the Ministry of Social Services provided to the Ministry of Attorney General No summary available.
No. 104-1996 May 24, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request by the media to the Ministry of Attorney General concerning information about possible sites for a correctional centre in the Central Okanagan No summary available.
No. 104-1996 May 24, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for an internal audit report in the custody of the Ministry of Attorney General No summary available.
No. 103-1996 May 23, 1996 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Ministry of Social Services' search for records requested by an applicant No summary available.
No. 102-1996 May 17, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request to BC Hydro for a waiver of fees No summary available.
No. 101-1996 May 14, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by BC Hydro to release third party information contained in a record requested by an applicant No summary available.
No. 100-1996 Apr 24, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Larkin Water Works District to refuse access to water usage records containing personal information about third parties No summary available.
No. 99-1996 Apr 22, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the British Columbia Securities Commission to sever certain information about third parties from records that an applicant requested No summary available.
No. 98-1996 Apr 19, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for review of the City of Vancouver's denial of a request for a fee waiver No summary available.
No. 186-1997 Apr 19, 1996 Inquiry Re: The Public Service Employee Relations Commission's decision to withhold records relating to a classification review of employees of Crown Victim Witness Services No summary available
No. 97-1996 Apr 18, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by Simon Fraser University to sever information from a report of a Committee of Inquiry No summary available.
No. 96-1996 Apr 8, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Social Services to refuse an applicant access to the institutional records of her deceased sister No summary available.
No. 95-1996 Mar 21, 1996 Inquiry Re: Whether records relating to a contractor and subcontractor are under the control of the BC Hydro No summary available.
No. 94-1996 Mar 20, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Social Services to withhold a series of letters No summary available.
No. 93-1996 Mar 19, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Office of the Public Trustee to withhold a legal opinion from an applicant No summary available.
No. 92-1996 Mar 15, 1996 Inquiry Re: A refusal by BC Hydro to grant access to records on the basis of solicitor-client privilege No summary available.
No. 91-1996 Mar 11, 1996 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be ... more
Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
No. 91-1996 Mar 11, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to withhold Digital Map Data from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee (WCWC) No summary available.
No. 90-1996 Mar 8, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for a waiver of fees by Vanden Berg and Associates Inc., representing the Penticton and Similkameen Indian Bands, with respect to information held by the Ministry of Employment and Investment No summary available.
No. 89-1996 Mar 4, 1996 Inquiry Re: Information sought by an applicant from the Motor Vehicle Branch of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways relating to the medical basis for the refusal of a driving licence No summary available.
No. 88-1996 Feb 29, 1996 Inquiry Re: A request for review of a decision by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to give partial access to a letter written by a third party No summary available.
No. 87-1996 Feb 29, 1996 Inquiry Re: A third party’s request for a review of a decision by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to give an applicant access to two letters that she had written to the Ministry No summary available.
No. 86-1996 Feb 27, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Social Services that a request for personal information did not fall within the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act No summary available.
No. 85-1996 Feb 26, 1996 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the Office of the Premier to disclose Cabinet records related to Roberts Bank and the Boundary Bay area No summary available.
No. 84-1996 Feb 22, 1996 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Vancouver Police Department’s search for an applicant’s records No summary available.
No. 83-1996 Feb 16, 1996 Inquiry Re: A Decision by the Ministry of Health to withhold from a parent a series of interviews concerning a child’s daycare No summary available.
No. 82-1996 Feb 9, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Social Services to refuse to disclose personal information of a third party No summary available.
No. 81-1996 Jan 25, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Cowichan Valley Regional District to refuse the media access to records relating to a former employee No summary available.
No. 80-1996 Jan 23, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to withhold records relating to the Motor Vehicle Registration database No summary available.
No. 79-1996 Jan 19, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Vancouver Police Department to require a specific fee for granting access to records No summary availabel
No. 78-1996 Jan 18, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Capital Regional District to refuse access to an investigation report regarding a complaint of harassment in the workplace No summary available
No. 77-1996 Jan 8, 1996 A decision by the Town of Smithers to refuse media access to financial statements for the Smithers Ski Corporation No summary available
No. 76-1995 Jan 5, 1996 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour to release a severed version of a letter of complaint against Malaspina University College, despite the objections of the third party who had written it No summary available
No. 75-1995 Jan 4, 1996 A refusal by the City of Surrey to provide bonus information about two management employees to the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Local 402 No summary avaialble
No. 74-1995 Dec 22, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for the release of records by the Legal Services Society concerning amounts paid for the criminal defense of two possible recipients of legal aid No summary available
No. 176-1997 Dec 22, 1995 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of a search for records by the Residential Tenancy Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General No summary available.
No. 73-1995 Dec 21, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministries of Health and Finance and Corporate Relations to refuse access to computer backup tapes containing deleted e-mail No summary available
No. 72-1995 Dec 20, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision to withhold from the Vancouver Province portions of a report concerning document handling and security within the Office of the Premier No summary available
No. 71-1995 Dec 15, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Office of the Premier to refuse access to records relating to allegations of sexual harassment against a former Cabinet Minister No summary available
No. 70-1995 Dec 14, 1995 Inquiry Re:A request for the release of all records relating to the resignation of the Executive Director of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital No summary available
No. 69-1995 Dec 13, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by the District of Squamish to refuse access to the addresses of electors contained in a List of Registered Electors No summary available.
No. 68-1995 Dec 12, 1995 Inquiry Re: A refusal by Islands Trust and the Saturna Island Local Trust Committee to grant access to legal opinions concerning section 992 of the Municipal Act No summary available.
No. 67-1995 Dec 11, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for reports of the North Fraser Harbour Commission concerning contamination of a Vancouver site No summary available.
No. 66-1995 Nov 27, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request by Almforest Aktiengesellschaft to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for the identity of an individual who made a contamination report No summary available.
No. 65-1995 Nov 21, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by the City of Nelson to refuse access by the media to records of long distance telephone calls made from its offices No summary available.
No. 64-1995 Nov 21, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by the City of Vancouver to refuse access by the Kitsilano News to records of long distance telephone calls made to four specified numbers No summary available.
No. 63-1995 Nov 21, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by the City of Vancouver to refuse access by the NDP Caucus to all fax, telephone, and cellular telephone logs for three separate time periods No summary available.
No. 62-1995 Nov 2, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request by a parent for access to records of a Delta School Board meeting relating to disciplinary action against a teacher No summary available.
No. 61-1995 Nov 1, 1995 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the District of North Vancouver to disclose an interim legal bill about a current court case No summary available.
No. 60-1995 Oct 31, 1995 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the Vancouver Police Department to disclose records of registered handgun owners in the City of Vancouver to the Kitsilano News No summary available.
No. 59-1995 Oct 25, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request by the media to the Vancouver School Board for performance evaluations of the Vancouver School Board Superintendent No summary available.
No. 58-1995 Oct 12, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Victoria Police Department to sever information and withhold law enforcement records from an applicant No summary available.
No. 57-1995 Oct 4, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request by the Dunbar Residents Association for environmental test results on a Vancouver site submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks by Chevron Canada Limited No summary available.
No. 56-1995 Oct 4, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request by the Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society for environmental test results submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks by Fletcher Challenge Canada Limited No summary available.
No. 55-1995 Sep 20, 1995 Inquiry Re: The City of Vancouver's denial of the New Democrat Government Caucus's request for a fee waiver No summary available.
No. 54-1995 Sep 19, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for access to records of the Workers' Compensation Board No summary available.
No. 53-1995 Sep 18, 1995 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the Office of the Public Trustee to disclose information concerning the estate of an applicant's deceased mother No summary available.
No. 52-1995 Sep 15, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for competition records held by the Ministry of Government Services No summary available.
No. 51-1995 Sep 14, 1995 Inquiry Re: An objection raised by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks with respect to the Jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into fees charged by a public body for records available for purchase No summary available.
No. 50-1995 Sep 13, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations to refuse access to records from an internal audit concerning a conflict of interest investigation No summary available.
No. 49-1995 Jul 7, 1995 Inquiry Re: A refusal by the Ministry of Social Services to disclose an adult daughter's personal information to her mother No summary available.
No. 48-1995 Jul 7, 1995 A request for access to records of the Ministry of Employment and Investment and the Office of the Premier No summary available.
No. 46-1995 Jul 5, 1995 Inquiry Re: A decision by School District 68 (Nanaimo) to release records about severance settlements provided to two former employees No summary available.
No. 45-1995 Jun 13, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for review of a decision by BC Transit to release information to Custom Transit Service Providers, including Deltassist Community Services Society No summary available.
No. 44-1995 Jun 13, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for review of a decision by the Ministry of Social Services to sever certain information from Family Services records about a child protection matter No summary available.
No. 43-1995 Jun 9, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for access to a letter from a third party responding to a complaint to the Town of View Royal No summary available.
No. 42-1995 Jun 9, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for access to records held by the Labour Relations Board, consisting of two Industrial Relations Officer's reports and a draft letter No summary available.
No. 41-1995 May 29, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for review of a decision by the Ministry of Social Services not to disclose to the Canada Ports Corporation the date that a third party commenced employment with the Ministry No summary available.
No. 40-1995 Apr 28, 1995 Inquiry Re: A request for access to a behavioural investigator’s report to the Office of the Chief Coroner on the death of Patient X at the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre No summary available.
No. 39-1995 Apr 24, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Complaint Records held by the City of Langley No summary available.
No. 38-1995 Mar 31, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records Pertaining to Flora Island held by the Ministry of Attorney General No summary available.
No. 37-1995 Mar 31, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records held by the Labour Relations Board (The Reports of an Industrial Relations Officer about an Application for Certification of a Union) No summary available.
No. 36-1995 Mar 31, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to the Name of a Complainant in a Record Held by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks concerning the Saturna Island Landfill No summary available.
No. 35-1995 Mar 27, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records about an Adult Adoptee held by the Ministry of Social Services No summary available.
No. 34-1995 Feb 3, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to a Record held by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, being a Letter of Complaint about the Applicant written by the Applicant’s Neighbour No summary available.
No. 33-1995 Feb 2, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records about the Premier’s Council on Native Affairs No summary available.
No. 32-1995 Jan 26, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Complaint Records of the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour No summary available.
No. 32-1995 Jan 26, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Complaint Records of the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour No summary available.
No. 31-1995 Jan 24, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Office of the Public Trustee of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 30-1995 Jan 12, 1995 Inquiry Re: A Complaint from the Radio and Television News Directors Association of Canada concerning the handling of a request by the Ministry of Attorney General and the Search Fees that the Ministry Proposed to Charge No summary available.
No. 29-1994 Nov 30, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records about Cypress Bowl Recreation Ltd., held by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism No summary available.
No. 28-1994 Nov 8, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to the Identity of the Author of a Letter to the Motor Vehicle Branch of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways No summary available.
No. 27-1994 Oct 24, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request by The Province for Access to Suicide Records held by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors No summary available.
No. 121-1996 Oct 24, 1994 Inquiry Re: A decision by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to refuse access to computer backup tapes containing deleted e-mail No summary available.
No. 26-1994 Oct 3, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to a Record of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority No summary available.
No. 25-1994 Sep 27, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 24-1994 Sep 27, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors No summary available.
No. 23-1994 Sep 16, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General No summary available.
No. 22-1994 Sep 1, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia and A Request to Review a Decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia to Disclose a Record No summary available.
No. 21-1994 Aug 15, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Decision to Withhold Records of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors No summary available.
No. 20-1994 Aug 2, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of The Ministry of Attorney General No summary available.
No. 19-1994 Jul 26, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of BC Transit No summary available.
No. 18-1994 Jul 21, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors No summary available.
No. 17-1994 Jul 11, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Decision to Release Records of the Ministry of Education No summary available.
No. 16-1994 Jul 8, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 15-1994 Jul 7, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request by the Wellington Insurance Company for Access to Records of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 14-1994 Jun 24, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request to Review a Decision of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs No summary available.
No. 13-1994 Jun 22, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the B.C. Police Commission No summary available.
No. 12-1994 Jun 22, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) No summary available.
No. 11-1994 Jun 16, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Health and Dogwood Lodge No summary available.
No. 10-1994 May 27, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Social Services No summary available.
No. 9-1994 May 26, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations No summary available.
No. 8-1994 May 26, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Employment and Investment and the Office of the Premier No summary available.
No. 7-1994 Apr 11, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Records Relating to the Performance of Abortion Services for the Ministry of Health No summary available.
No. 6-1994 Mar 31, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for a Report from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) No summary available.
No. 6-1994 Mar 31, 1994 Inquiry Re: The adequacy of the Ministry of Attorney General’s search for records requested by an applicant No summary available.
No. 5-1994 Mar 14, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for a Report from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia No summary available.
No. 4-1994 Mar 1, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Psychological Records held by the B.C. Board of Parole, Ministry of Attorney General No summary available.
No. 3-1994 Feb 23, 1994 A Request for Access to Survey Records held by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food No summary available.
No. 2-1994 Feb 7, 1994 Inquiry Re: A Request for Access to Ministry of Social Services Records No summary available.
No. 1-1994 Jan 11, 1994 Inquiry Re: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations / Public Service Employee Relations Commission No summary available.